info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
238 views
Skip to first unread message
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Nov 11, 2015, 10:52:12 PM11/11/15
to
The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
available.
Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
I was given verbal permission in a phone conversation with a Microsoft
representative. He said the software was obsolete and of no further use
to Microsoft. I couldn't expect more than a verbal OK in this case.
I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
and most folk have progressed beyond that.
Quick Basic can be used to generate the frames for animations. But
creating animations is very time consuming and the files can be extremely
large. Posting a Qbasic program of only a few thousand bytes can give the
equivalent of an animation that would fill up a hard drive, and it will
have user input capability.
This program performs calculations at 7.6 million steps
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/mercxmp3.html
Its purpose should be evident here
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pio-merc.html
-----
Max Keon
Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
available.
Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
I was given verbal permission in a phone conversation with a Microsoft
representative. He said the software was obsolete and of no further use
to Microsoft. I couldn't expect more than a verbal OK in this case.
I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
and most folk have progressed beyond that.
Quick Basic can be used to generate the frames for animations. But
creating animations is very time consuming and the files can be extremely
large. Posting a Qbasic program of only a few thousand bytes can give the
equivalent of an animation that would fill up a hard drive, and it will
have user input capability.
This program performs calculations at 7.6 million steps
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/mercxmp3.html
Its purpose should be evident here
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pio-merc.html
-----
Max Keon
Henry Wilson
Nov 23, 2015, 2:16:31 PM11/23/15
to
cannot be run after Vista although its .exe's will run on all later
windows.
John Heath
Nov 24, 2015, 4:31:47 AM11/24/15
to
So the interpreter type vbasic will not run after Vista. This is good to know. What is the earliest freeware version of vbasic that will compile to exe's ? I am thinking of upgrading from quick basic.
Henry Wilson
Nov 26, 2015, 4:51:01 AM11/26/15
to
Studio 2005 included c++ and Vbasic but is not as good as 2006 as far as
I am concerned. Visual studio 2010 and later also contain Vbasic and will
run on all later versions of windows but they are not popular and it is
obvious why. They are as hard to use as Java and they lack lots of
features that 2006 had. For some reason, whenever Microsoft brings out a
new version of anything, it is more complicated than its predecessor and
much harder to use..
John Heath
Nov 28, 2015, 3:10:36 AM11/28/15
to
HGW
Nov 28, 2015, 4:00:27 PM11/28/15
to
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 00:10:33 -0800 (PST), John Heath <heath...@gmail.com>
wrote:
You may be able to use 2010 version but it lacks many of the properties I
frequently use. c+ was also changed in similar fashion. I don't know what
Microsoft is trying to achieve. 2006 was a great language. Ther are several
other programs that run on 64 bit but they are just as clumsy. You might like
to try Pure basic.
wrote:
frequently use. c+ was also changed in similar fashion. I don't know what
Microsoft is trying to achieve. 2006 was a great language. Ther are several
other programs that run on 64 bit but they are just as clumsy. You might like
to try Pure basic.
John Heath
Nov 29, 2015, 9:43:06 AM11/29/15
to
Henry Wilson
Nov 30, 2015, 4:15:59 PM11/30/15
to
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 06:43:04 -0800, John Heath wrote:
>good to know before hand. Thanks for your input.
>>
>> You may be able to use 2010 version but it lacks many of the properties
>> I frequently use. c+ was also changed in similar fashion. I don't know
>> what Microsoft is trying to achieve. 2006 was a great language. Ther
>> are several other programs that run on 64 bit but they are just as
>> clumsy. You might like to try Pure basic.
>
> From what I googled PureBasic can compile to windows , Linux and Mac for
> 32 and 64 bit processors without external DLLs. The guy that did this
> must now be sitting in a wheel chair with a blanket on his knees talking
> to himself. How is it possible to take on such a task. My hat goes off
> and I salute.
Not easy...I gather it originated in Germany from a team effort. I tried
>good to know before hand. Thanks for your input.
>>
>> You may be able to use 2010 version but it lacks many of the properties
>> I frequently use. c+ was also changed in similar fashion. I don't know
>> what Microsoft is trying to achieve. 2006 was a great language. Ther
>> are several other programs that run on 64 bit but they are just as
>> clumsy. You might like to try Pure basic.
>
> From what I googled PureBasic can compile to windows , Linux and Mac for
> 32 and 64 bit processors without external DLLs. The guy that did this
> must now be sitting in a wheel chair with a blanket on his knees talking
> to himself. How is it possible to take on such a task. My hat goes off
> and I salute.
it but didn't persevere for long. It is not unlike the latest Microsoft
VBasic.
John Heath
Dec 3, 2015, 10:32:46 PM12/3/15
to
Gary Harnagel
Dec 3, 2015, 10:47:16 PM12/3/15
to
On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 8:32:46 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
>
> I just today tried dosbox for windows 7 64 bit os. It is a virtual simulation
> of dos within win 7 with its own virtual hard drive. It runs quick basic EXEs
> better than win xp. I called a machine level hardware interrupt from the
> motherboard ROM and it worked ?? Dosbox is a virtual shell but it is not
> isolated from the motherboard hardware. Too early to say but it seems to be
> the real deal.
Hi John,
>
> I just today tried dosbox for windows 7 64 bit os. It is a virtual simulation
> of dos within win 7 with its own virtual hard drive. It runs quick basic EXEs
> better than win xp. I called a machine level hardware interrupt from the
> motherboard ROM and it worked ?? Dosbox is a virtual shell but it is not
> isolated from the motherboard hardware. Too early to say but it seems to be
> the real deal.
I run dosbox under windows 7, too, and it supports GWBasic just fine. I
tried to copy a floppy A to floppy B, but it doesn't support DiskCopy :-(
Gary
John Heath
Dec 3, 2015, 11:17:15 PM12/3/15
to
John Heath
Dec 4, 2015, 1:56:40 AM12/4/15
to
Gary Harnagel
Dec 4, 2015, 7:29:48 AM12/4/15
to
On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 11:56:40 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
>
> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 11:17:15 PM UTC-5, John Heath wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 10:47:16 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > I run dosbox under windows 7, too, and it supports GWBasic just fine. I
> > > tried to copy a floppy A to floppy B, but it doesn't support DiskCopy :-(
> > >
> > > Gary
> >
> > Good. As this is my first day with dosbox I have some burning questions.
> > If I write some code in dosbox , save then shut win 7 down do I lose the
> > code when the virtual drive is gone or does it write the saved data to
> > the real drive.
While still in Win7, I create a drive G where I put my .bat file. I mount
>
> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 11:17:15 PM UTC-5, John Heath wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 10:47:16 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > I run dosbox under windows 7, too, and it supports GWBasic just fine. I
> > > tried to copy a floppy A to floppy B, but it doesn't support DiskCopy :-(
> > >
> > > Gary
> >
> > Good. As this is my first day with dosbox I have some burning questions.
> > If I write some code in dosbox , save then shut win 7 down do I lose the
> > code when the virtual drive is gone or does it write the saved data to
> > the real drive.
the G drive first thing, then do G: and work from there.
> And secondly how does one get around Z> mount c: c:\dos_stuff" ??
directly from Win7.
> Can I append this to the dosbox auto.bat file to deal with automatically
> when opening dosbox?
I expect lots of new concepts will be coming my way soon :-)
John Heath
Dec 4, 2015, 12:21:41 PM12/4/15
to
http://www.velleman.eu/products/view/?country=be&lang=en&id=351346
It is going to be fun playing with this new toy dosbox. We live in good times with internet connecting nerds from around the world.
Gary Harnagel
Dec 4, 2015, 12:40:10 PM12/4/15
to
On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 10:21:41 AM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
>
> On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 7:29:48 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > I expect lots of new concepts will be coming my way soon :-)
>
> From what I Googled dosbox is great at video card , sound card , rs232 com
> ports and IP addressing to the real world. It was designed for old PC
> games if you can imagine. Sadly they neglected the printer port as this
> has little to do with old PC games so you could be out of luck for your
> radiation monitor as far as using a newer computer.
My data logging computer is running native DOS 6.22, so I'm doing okay
>
> On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 7:29:48 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > I expect lots of new concepts will be coming my way soon :-)
>
> From what I Googled dosbox is great at video card , sound card , rs232 com
> ports and IP addressing to the real world. It was designed for old PC
> games if you can imagine. Sadly they neglected the printer port as this
> has little to do with old PC games so you could be out of luck for your
> radiation monitor as far as using a newer computer.
with that. My desktop computer is running Win7, so I need dosbox to
massage the data and graph it. I use snarf to save a file of the screen.
Gary
> I am sure some science nerd will come up with a printer port add on driver
> for dosbox down the road if not already. I like using the printer port to
> as it is 2 1/2 bytes of parallel data handed on a silver platter to do
> with as you please but it is being phased out for USB. My solution is the
> USB k8055 kit with parallel data and a/d d/a analog input and outputs ,
> check it out.
>
> http://www.velleman.eu/products/view/?country=be&lang=en&id=351346
>
> It is going to be fun playing with this new toy dosbox. We live in good
> times with internet connecting nerds from around the world.
nice :-)
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Dec 9, 2015, 9:15:02 PM12/9/15
to
On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 6:16:31 AM UTC+11, Henry Wilson wrote:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/test4a.html
shows Mercury's orbit decay caused by a proposed
anisotropy in the gravity force. But that not important
here. You will not download and run that file even if
you're given its file size and it compares. 117760 bytes
in this case. Why would anyone bother doing that? Why???
Unless the .exe file is accompanied by the maths in the program
that generated it, it's a pointless exercise anyway. One needs
to have a basic understanding of the programming language as
well. So which programming language would one choose?
My .exe file was generated from a converted Qbasic program that
was designed to run under FreeBasic-1.04.0-win32. You should
check it out. http://www.freebasic.net/
Even the screen graphics can be captured with Paint Shop Pro or
similar.
However, nobody will hesitate to copy text from a screen and
paste it into the Qbasic screen. Everything is now at one's
fingertips and user input is unlimited. In this case the
consequences of any changes that effect the math can be noted
almost immediately, i.e. with and without the anisotropy.
But the .exe file needs to be re-compiled for every change. And
that can only be done if the end user is familiar with the chosen
programming language. It's all very messy.
And the .exe file is 87 times bigger than the Qbasic file
(1343 bytes). The .exe file runs a *hell of a lot* faster though.
-----
Max Keon
> Vbasic 2006 was far better than Qbasic and is a great language. It too
> cannot be run after Vista although its .exe's will run on all later
> windows.
Nobody is going to run an .exe file.
> cannot be run after Vista although its .exe's will run on all later
> windows.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/test4a.html
shows Mercury's orbit decay caused by a proposed
anisotropy in the gravity force. But that not important
here. You will not download and run that file even if
you're given its file size and it compares. 117760 bytes
in this case. Why would anyone bother doing that? Why???
Unless the .exe file is accompanied by the maths in the program
that generated it, it's a pointless exercise anyway. One needs
to have a basic understanding of the programming language as
well. So which programming language would one choose?
My .exe file was generated from a converted Qbasic program that
was designed to run under FreeBasic-1.04.0-win32. You should
check it out. http://www.freebasic.net/
Even the screen graphics can be captured with Paint Shop Pro or
similar.
However, nobody will hesitate to copy text from a screen and
paste it into the Qbasic screen. Everything is now at one's
fingertips and user input is unlimited. In this case the
consequences of any changes that effect the math can be noted
almost immediately, i.e. with and without the anisotropy.
But the .exe file needs to be re-compiled for every change. And
that can only be done if the end user is familiar with the chosen
programming language. It's all very messy.
And the .exe file is 87 times bigger than the Qbasic file
(1343 bytes). The .exe file runs a *hell of a lot* faster though.
-----
Max Keon
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Dec 9, 2015, 10:25:13 PM12/9/15
to
I posted my last reply before it was finished. It would be confusing.
Henry Wilson wrote:
> Vbasic 2006 was far better than Qbasic and is a great language. It too
> cannot be run after Vista although its .exe's will run on all later
> windows.
Nobody is going to run an .exe file.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/test4a.html
The .exe file shows Mercury's orbit decay caused by a
proposed anisotropy in the gravity force. But that's not
user needs to have a basic understanding of the programming
My .exe file was generated from a modified Qbasic program so
that it would run under FreeBasic-1.04.0-win32. You should
Henry Wilson wrote:
> Vbasic 2006 was far better than Qbasic and is a great language. It too
> cannot be run after Vista although its .exe's will run on all later
> windows.
Nobody is going to run an .exe file.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/test4a.html
proposed anisotropy in the gravity force. But that's not
important here. You will not download and run that file even
if you're given its file size and it compares. 117760 bytes
in this case. Why would anyone bother doing that?
if you're given its file size and it compares. 117760 bytes
in this case. Why would anyone bother doing that?
Unless the .exe file is accompanied by the maths in the program
that generated it, it's a pointless exercise anyway. The end
user needs to have a basic understanding of the programming
language as well. So which programming language would one
choose here?
My .exe file was generated from a modified Qbasic program so
that it would run under FreeBasic-1.04.0-win32. You should
check it out. http://www.freebasic.net/ Even the screen
graphics can be captured with Paint Shop Pro or similar.
But the .exe file still needs to be re-compiled for every
graphics can be captured with Paint Shop Pro or similar.
change. And that can only be done if the end user is familiar
with the chosen programming language and has access to it.
It's all very messy.
However, nobody will hesitate to copy text from a screen and
paste it into the Qbasic screen. Everything is now at one's
fingertips and user input is unlimited. In this case the
consequences of any changes that effect the math can be noted
almost immediately, i.e. with and without the anisotropy.
paste it into the Qbasic screen. Everything is now at one's
fingertips and user input is unlimited. In this case the
consequences of any changes that effect the math can be noted
almost immediately, i.e. with and without the anisotropy.
Henry Wilson
Dec 12, 2015, 5:42:01 AM12/12/15
to
On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 19:25:11 -0800, mskeon wrote:
> I posted my last reply before it was finished. It would be confusing.
>
> Henry Wilson wrote:
>> Vbasic 2006 was far better than Qbasic and is a great language. It too
>> cannot be run after Vista although its .exe's will run on all later
>> windows.
>
> Nobody is going to run an .exe file.
What are you talking about? Windows programs are full of .exe files.
> I posted my last reply before it was finished. It would be confusing.
>
> Henry Wilson wrote:
>> Vbasic 2006 was far better than Qbasic and is a great language. It too
>> cannot be run after Vista although its .exe's will run on all later
>> windows.
>
> Nobody is going to run an .exe file.
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/test4a.html The .exe file shows
> Mercury's orbit decay caused by a proposed anisotropy in the gravity
> force. But that's not important here. You will not download and run that
> file even if you're given its file size and it compares. 117760 bytes in
> this case. Why would anyone bother doing that?
>
> Unless the .exe file is accompanied by the maths in the program that
> generated it, it's a pointless exercise anyway. The end user needs to
> have a basic understanding of the programming language as well. So which
> programming language would one choose here?
can easily be provided if required.
> My .exe file was generated from a modified Qbasic program so that it
> would run under FreeBasic-1.04.0-win32. You should check it out.
> http://www.freebasic.net/ Even the screen graphics can be captured with
> Paint Shop Pro or similar.
> But the .exe file still needs to be re-compiled for every change. And
> that can only be done if the end user is familiar with the chosen
> programming language and has access to it.
> It's all very messy.
VBasic 6 is far superior in every respect. It is the perfect language for
physics animations, calculations and graphs.
>
> Max Keon
John Heath
Dec 12, 2015, 7:37:18 AM12/12/15
to
On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 7:29:48 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 11:56:40 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 11:17:15 PM UTC-5, John Heath wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 10:47:16 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi John,
> > > >
> > > > I run dosbox under windows 7, too, and it supports GWBasic just fine. I
> > > > tried to copy a floppy A to floppy B, but it doesn't support DiskCopy :-(
> > > >
> > > > Gary
> > >
> > > Good. As this is my first day with dosbox I have some burning questions.
> > > If I write some code in dosbox , save then shut win 7 down do I lose the
> > > code when the virtual drive is gone or does it write the saved data to
> > > the real drive.
>
> While still in Win7, I create a drive G where I put my .bat file. I mount
> the G drive first thing, then do G: and work from there.
>
> > And secondly how does one get around Z> mount c: c:\dos_stuff" ??
>
> Let me know when you figure that out. I haven't tried creating a z: drive
> directly from Win7.
>
> > Can I append this to the dosbox auto.bat file to deal with automatically
> > when opening dosbox?
>
> Where do you put that file?
I got it.
> On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 11:56:40 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 11:17:15 PM UTC-5, John Heath wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 10:47:16 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi John,
> > > >
> > > > I run dosbox under windows 7, too, and it supports GWBasic just fine. I
> > > > tried to copy a floppy A to floppy B, but it doesn't support DiskCopy :-(
> > > >
> > > > Gary
> > >
> > > Good. As this is my first day with dosbox I have some burning questions.
> > > If I write some code in dosbox , save then shut win 7 down do I lose the
> > > code when the virtual drive is gone or does it write the saved data to
> > > the real drive.
>
> While still in Win7, I create a drive G where I put my .bat file. I mount
> the G drive first thing, then do G: and work from there.
>
> > And secondly how does one get around Z> mount c: c:\dos_stuff" ??
>
> Let me know when you figure that out. I haven't tried creating a z: drive
> directly from Win7.
>
> > Can I append this to the dosbox auto.bat file to deal with automatically
> > when opening dosbox?
>
> Where do you put that file?
program files , dosbox , options
then edit config file at the end adding
Mount c c;\dostuff\ blah blah
cd nc
nc
This will be saved and executed on start up to automatically mount and run Norton commander.
I always have a sense of relief when I see the friendly screen of Norton commander. We all have software that we have become familiar with and can not live without.
Interesting note . Dosbox should have ended up being c:\dostuff\blah blah blah
It ends up being C:\ blah blah blah. What happened to \dostuff\ ??
In any event it works so I am happy :<).
Gary Harnagel
Dec 12, 2015, 8:09:28 AM12/12/15
to
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 5:37:18 AM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
>
> I got it.
>
> program files , dosbox , options
>
> then edit config file at the end adding
>
> Mount c c;\dostuff\ blah blah
> cd nc
> nc
>
> This will be saved and executed on start up to automatically mount and
> run Norton commander.
>
> I always have a sense of relief when I see the friendly screen of Norton
> commander. We all have software that we have become familiar with and
> can not live without.
>
> Interesting note . Dosbox should have ended up being c:\dostuff\blah blah blah
> It ends up being C:\ blah blah blah. What happened to \dostuff\ ??
>
> In any event it works so I am happy :<).
Thanks John! I found the config file and added the stuff that I had to
>
> I got it.
>
> program files , dosbox , options
>
> then edit config file at the end adding
>
> Mount c c;\dostuff\ blah blah
> cd nc
> nc
>
> This will be saved and executed on start up to automatically mount and
> run Norton commander.
>
> I always have a sense of relief when I see the friendly screen of Norton
> commander. We all have software that we have become familiar with and
> can not live without.
>
> Interesting note . Dosbox should have ended up being c:\dostuff\blah blah blah
> It ends up being C:\ blah blah blah. What happened to \dostuff\ ??
>
> In any event it works so I am happy :<).
type in previously. I also set the speed to max, which saves me from
having to hit ctrl_F12 a zillion times :-)
Gary
Jason Wyome
Dec 13, 2015, 3:15:18 PM12/13/15
to
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> M$ took something away for reasons that are not important to me.
>
> Microsoft didn't take anything away, the offered a new product and you
> obviously bought the new product.
> No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 or
> Windows XP; it was your choice.
You are deluded, not understanding computers, same way you are
understanding Physics. He just need to use a virtual machine and run
whatever he wants to run. This is the correct answer.
>> M$ took something away for reasons that are not important to me.
>
> Microsoft didn't take anything away, the offered a new product and you
> obviously bought the new product.
> No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 or
> Windows XP; it was your choice.
You are deluded, not understanding computers, same way you are
understanding Physics. He just need to use a virtual machine and run
whatever he wants to run. This is the correct answer.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Dec 13, 2015, 3:31:04 PM12/13/15
to
Jason Wyome
Dec 13, 2015, 3:37:45 PM12/13/15
to
(°ʖ°) jimp wrote:
>>>> M$ took something away for reasons that are not important to me.
>>>
>>> Microsoft didn't take anything away, the offered a new product and you
>>> obviously bought the new product.
>>> No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 or
>>> Windows XP; it was your choice.
>>
>> You are deluded, not understanding computers, same way you are
>> understanding Physics. He just need to use a virtual machine and run
>> whatever he wants to run. This is the correct answer.
>
> Idiot.
You don't even know what a virtual box in computing is. Exactly supporting
>>>> M$ took something away for reasons that are not important to me.
>>>
>>> Microsoft didn't take anything away, the offered a new product and you
>>> obviously bought the new product.
>>> No one held a gun to your head and forced you to abandon Windows 3 or
>>> Windows XP; it was your choice.
>>
>> You are deluded, not understanding computers, same way you are
>> understanding Physics. He just need to use a virtual machine and run
>> whatever he wants to run. This is the correct answer.
>
> Idiot.
my previous statement. Your laboratory experience in Physics is close to
the very absolute zero Kelvin.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Dec 13, 2015, 4:16:06 PM12/13/15
to
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Dec 13, 2015, 8:50:54 PM12/13/15
to
Henry Wilson wrote:
sources that may not be secure and could contain viruses. If I
have little or no protection on my computer I could generate
.exe files that contain viruses. Would you take the risk and
download such files? No you wouldn't. Why would you want to take
that gamble when there's really nothing there of any personal
significance to you?
I've added another .exe file to this page
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/test4a.html
Example (2). How do you feel about downloading it? It poses
questions for Relativity. And my computer is secure (trust me).
The number of steps involved in sending each beam from the light
source to the mirrors and back are counted. According to the
default cycle of the animated reality the time rate in the
relatively moving frame has slowed to t'= t*.75, but according to
observation it has slowed to t'= t*.866 . The discrepancy could
perhaps be accounted for if the distance between the mirrors was
to shrink to .866 of the original length. The shrinkage can't be
just an illusion that's generated by the relative motion of the
frame either, it must be real. The moving frame length is
measured in the screen frame and if it hasn't physically shrunk,
the time discrepancy could not be justified.
The same will apply from the viewpoint in the FOR of the
mirror-source assembly. If that is deemed stationary and the
screen frame is moving at .5c the screen frame must also shrink
to .866 of its original length. In order to accommodate both
scenarios both frames have necessarily shrunk by that amount. But
that takes us back to square one again. Neither of them could
ever have been their original measured lengths. So we begin again
with two shorter frames. And arrive back at square one once
again.
From a viewpoint in either FOR, time has slowed in the
relatively moving frame. Since each of the frames can be a valid
FOR, when clocks from the two frames are brought back together
for comparison, they will always display the same time. But
that's no so. Another thing you will notice is that the square
root of the round trip light speed slowing rate is identical to
the time slowing rate.
The reference to Pythagoras is also of significance.
Try entering v = .7071
Which is of course the square root of .5 or 1/sqr(2)
The pixel count gives a light speed and time rate change of
(c or t)'= (c,t) * .5 , while the the observed change is
(c,t) * .7071 . The indication here is that v is shared
globally, in the two dimensions around the line of relative
motion.
Have I said enough yet to make you want to download and run the
file? How much easier would it be to simply copy the text based
program off this screen and paste it into Qbasic?
>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/test4a.html The .exe file shows
>> Mercury's orbit decay caused by a proposed anisotropy in the gravity
>> force. But that's not important here. You will not download and run that
>> file even if you're given its file size and it compares. 117760 bytes in
>> this case. Why would anyone bother doing that?
>>
>> Unless the .exe file is accompanied by the maths in the program that
>> generated it, it's a pointless exercise anyway. The end user needs to
>> have a basic understanding of the programming language as well. So which
>> programming language would one choose here?
>
> Vbasic6 is a very straight forward and simple form of basic. The source
> can easily be provided if required.
>
>> My .exe file was generated from a modified Qbasic program so that it
>> would run under FreeBasic-1.04.0-win32. You should check it out.
>> http://www.freebasic.net/ Even the screen graphics can be captured with
>> Paint Shop Pro or similar.
>> But the .exe file still needs to be re-compiled for every change. And
>> that can only be done if the end user is familiar with the chosen
>> programming language and has access to it.
>> It's all very messy.
>
> Why are you wasting time using archaic QBasic.
> VBasic 6 is far superior in every respect. It is the perfect language for
> physics animations, calculations and graphs.
Qbasic performs exactly as required for the intended purpose. Upgrading
to VBasic won't make it better, it will only add more complication to a
relatively simple process that already works brilliantly.
Why change that?
I can understand your reluctance to upgrade from VBasic 6 too.
It obviously performs exactly as you require, so what's the point
of changing? Personally, I think you should downgrade to Qbasic.
-----
Max Keon
> Max Keon wrote:
>> I posted my last reply before it was finished. It would be confusing.
>>
>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> Vbasic 2006 was far better than Qbasic and is a great language. It too
>>> cannot be run after Vista although its .exe's will run on all later
>>> windows.
>>
>> Nobody is going to run an .exe file.
>
> What are you talking about? Windows programs are full of .exe files.
I was referring to .exe files that have been downloaded from
>> I posted my last reply before it was finished. It would be confusing.
>>
>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> Vbasic 2006 was far better than Qbasic and is a great language. It too
>>> cannot be run after Vista although its .exe's will run on all later
>>> windows.
>>
>> Nobody is going to run an .exe file.
>
> What are you talking about? Windows programs are full of .exe files.
sources that may not be secure and could contain viruses. If I
have little or no protection on my computer I could generate
.exe files that contain viruses. Would you take the risk and
download such files? No you wouldn't. Why would you want to take
that gamble when there's really nothing there of any personal
significance to you?
I've added another .exe file to this page
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/test4a.html
Example (2). How do you feel about downloading it? It poses
questions for Relativity. And my computer is secure (trust me).
The number of steps involved in sending each beam from the light
source to the mirrors and back are counted. According to the
default cycle of the animated reality the time rate in the
relatively moving frame has slowed to t'= t*.75, but according to
observation it has slowed to t'= t*.866 . The discrepancy could
perhaps be accounted for if the distance between the mirrors was
to shrink to .866 of the original length. The shrinkage can't be
just an illusion that's generated by the relative motion of the
frame either, it must be real. The moving frame length is
measured in the screen frame and if it hasn't physically shrunk,
the time discrepancy could not be justified.
The same will apply from the viewpoint in the FOR of the
mirror-source assembly. If that is deemed stationary and the
screen frame is moving at .5c the screen frame must also shrink
to .866 of its original length. In order to accommodate both
scenarios both frames have necessarily shrunk by that amount. But
that takes us back to square one again. Neither of them could
ever have been their original measured lengths. So we begin again
with two shorter frames. And arrive back at square one once
again.
From a viewpoint in either FOR, time has slowed in the
relatively moving frame. Since each of the frames can be a valid
FOR, when clocks from the two frames are brought back together
for comparison, they will always display the same time. But
that's no so. Another thing you will notice is that the square
root of the round trip light speed slowing rate is identical to
the time slowing rate.
The reference to Pythagoras is also of significance.
Try entering v = .7071
Which is of course the square root of .5 or 1/sqr(2)
The pixel count gives a light speed and time rate change of
(c or t)'= (c,t) * .5 , while the the observed change is
(c,t) * .7071 . The indication here is that v is shared
globally, in the two dimensions around the line of relative
motion.
Have I said enough yet to make you want to download and run the
file? How much easier would it be to simply copy the text based
program off this screen and paste it into Qbasic?
>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/test4a.html The .exe file shows
>> Mercury's orbit decay caused by a proposed anisotropy in the gravity
>> force. But that's not important here. You will not download and run that
>> file even if you're given its file size and it compares. 117760 bytes in
>> this case. Why would anyone bother doing that?
>>
>> Unless the .exe file is accompanied by the maths in the program that
>> generated it, it's a pointless exercise anyway. The end user needs to
>> have a basic understanding of the programming language as well. So which
>> programming language would one choose here?
>
> Vbasic6 is a very straight forward and simple form of basic. The source
> can easily be provided if required.
>
>> My .exe file was generated from a modified Qbasic program so that it
>> would run under FreeBasic-1.04.0-win32. You should check it out.
>> http://www.freebasic.net/ Even the screen graphics can be captured with
>> Paint Shop Pro or similar.
>> But the .exe file still needs to be re-compiled for every change. And
>> that can only be done if the end user is familiar with the chosen
>> programming language and has access to it.
>> It's all very messy.
>
> Why are you wasting time using archaic QBasic.
> VBasic 6 is far superior in every respect. It is the perfect language for
> physics animations, calculations and graphs.
to VBasic won't make it better, it will only add more complication to a
relatively simple process that already works brilliantly.
Why change that?
I can understand your reluctance to upgrade from VBasic 6 too.
It obviously performs exactly as you require, so what's the point
of changing? Personally, I think you should downgrade to Qbasic.
-----
Max Keon
John Heath
Dec 13, 2015, 9:11:08 PM12/13/15
to
John Heath
Dec 13, 2015, 9:15:52 PM12/13/15
to
On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 8:50:54 PM UTC-5, msk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Melzzzzz
Dec 13, 2015, 9:40:33 PM12/13/15
to
Odd Bodkin
Dec 14, 2015, 11:28:47 AM12/14/15
to
On 12/12/2015 4:41 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> Nobody is going to run an .exe file.
> What are you talking about? Windows programs are full of .exe files.
>
Commericial Windows programs have to pass a quality test.
>> Nobody is going to run an .exe file.
> What are you talking about? Windows programs are full of .exe files.
>
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Jason Wyome
Dec 14, 2015, 11:38:25 AM12/14/15
to
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/12/2015 4:41 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> Nobody is going to run an .exe file.
>> What are you talking about? Windows programs are full of .exe files.
>
> Commericial Windows programs have to pass a quality test.
LOL
> On 12/12/2015 4:41 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> Nobody is going to run an .exe file.
>> What are you talking about? Windows programs are full of .exe files.
>
> Commericial Windows programs have to pass a quality test.
Jason Wyome
Dec 14, 2015, 3:47:24 PM12/14/15
to
>> ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Jim, the guy doesn't know what "16-bit" means.
>>
>> What does it mean, other than 16 bits? lol.
>
> The 8086 instruction set, idiot.
Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context,
you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the 16
bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not instruction-set,
but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may relates to anything,
16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.
I bet you don't even know what characterize a 16bit processor, or a micro-
controller if you wish.
>>
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Jim, the guy doesn't know what "16-bit" means.
>>
>> What does it mean, other than 16 bits? lol.
>
> The 8086 instruction set, idiot.
Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context,
you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the 16
bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not instruction-set,
but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may relates to anything,
16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.
I bet you don't even know what characterize a 16bit processor, or a micro-
controller if you wish.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Dec 14, 2015, 4:46:04 PM12/14/15
to
In sci.physics Jason Wyome <jas...@hotmail.org> wrote:
coded for, and I meant 8086 instruction set, idiot.
The 8086 was 16 bit only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086
--
Jim Pennino
> ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) jimp wrote:
>
>> Jason Wyome <jas...@hotmail.org> wrote:
>>> ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Jim, the guy doesn't know what "16-bit" means.
>>>
>>> What does it mean, other than 16 bits? lol.
>>
>> The 8086 instruction set, idiot.
>
> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context,
> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the 16
> bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not instruction-set,
> but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may relates to anything,
> 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.
No, I said the 8086 instruction set, which is what legacy Windows was
>
>> Jason Wyome <jas...@hotmail.org> wrote:
>>> ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Jim, the guy doesn't know what "16-bit" means.
>>>
>>> What does it mean, other than 16 bits? lol.
>>
>> The 8086 instruction set, idiot.
>
> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context,
> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the 16
> bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not instruction-set,
> but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may relates to anything,
> 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.
coded for, and I meant 8086 instruction set, idiot.
The 8086 was 16 bit only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086
--
Jim Pennino
Jason Wyome
Dec 14, 2015, 5:33:46 PM12/14/15
to
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) jimp wrote:
>> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context,
>> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the
>> 16 bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not
>> instruction-set, but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may
>> relates to anything, 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.
>
> No, I said the 8086 instruction set, which is what legacy Windows was
> coded for, and I meant 8086 instruction set, idiot.
> The 8086 was 16 bit only.
I know better than you what an i8086 stands for (remark the difference,
>> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the
>> 16 bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not
>> instruction-set, but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may
>> relates to anything, 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.
>
> No, I said the 8086 instruction set, which is what legacy Windows was
> coded for, and I meant 8086 instruction set, idiot.
> The 8086 was 16 bit only.
stoopid). But you still appear severely uneducated. I must repeat, the
instruction set for a 16b i8086 CISC (complex) may be larger OR smaller
than 16b. (ie 8b, 16b, 24b, 32b etc) That's why is called CISC and not a
RISC. Hopefully you just got a lesson you never forget.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/X86_Assembly/Machine_Language_Conversion
"The x86 architecture is a complex instruction set computer (CISC)
architecture. Amongst other things, this means that the instructions for
the x86 architecture are of varying lengths. This can make the processes
of assembly, disassembly and instruction decoding more complicated,
because the instruction length needs to be calculated for each
instruction."
See now you are an idiot?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Dec 14, 2015, 7:16:05 PM12/14/15
to
In sci.physics Jason Wyome <jas...@hotmail.org> wrote:
> ( ͡° ?ʖ ͡°) jimp wrote:
>
>>> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context,
>>> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the
>>> 16 bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not
>>> instruction-set, but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may
>>> relates to anything, 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.
>>
>> No, I said the 8086 instruction set, which is what legacy Windows was
>> coded for, and I meant 8086 instruction set, idiot.
>> The 8086 was 16 bit only.
>
> I know better than you what an i8086 stands for (remark the difference,
> stoopid). But you still appear severely uneducated. I must repeat, the
> instruction set for a 16b i8086 CISC (complex) may be larger OR smaller
> than 16b. (ie 8b, 16b, 24b, 32b etc) That's why is called CISC and not a
> RISC. Hopefully you just got a lesson you never forget.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086
>
>>> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context,
>>> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the
>>> 16 bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not
>>> instruction-set, but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may
>>> relates to anything, 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.
>>
>> No, I said the 8086 instruction set, which is what legacy Windows was
>> coded for, and I meant 8086 instruction set, idiot.
>> The 8086 was 16 bit only.
>
> I know better than you what an i8086 stands for (remark the difference,
> stoopid). But you still appear severely uneducated. I must repeat, the
> instruction set for a 16b i8086 CISC (complex) may be larger OR smaller
> than 16b. (ie 8b, 16b, 24b, 32b etc) That's why is called CISC and not a
> RISC. Hopefully you just got a lesson you never forget.
Read it an learn what an idiot you are.
--
Jim Pennino
gilber34
Dec 14, 2015, 10:57:48 PM12/14/15
to
the 16 bit accumulator is the defining term, not instruction set, not 16
bit processor (slang), not CRC, not code.
The accumulator is part of the processor, it is hardware.
google for it.
I don't have the time to learn you all that.
Jürgen Großenbuch
Dec 15, 2015, 10:02:45 AM12/15/15
to
gilber34 wrote:
>>> The 8086 instruction set, idiot.
>>
>> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context,
>> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the
>> 16 bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not
>> instruction-set,
>> but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may relates to
>> anything, 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.
>> I bet you don't even know what characterize a 16bit processor, or a
>> micro-controller if you wish.
>>> The 8086 instruction set, idiot.
>>
>> Has nothing to do with processors and instruction sets in that context,
>> you blind fool. And instructions sets for a 8086 may be larger than the
>> 16 bits. You should have been saying 16bit processor, not
>> instruction-set,
>> but as said, would be out of context. But the 16 may relates to
>> anything, 16b code, 16b CRC, 16b dataword, 16b mux, etc etc.
>> I bet you don't even know what characterize a 16bit processor, or a
>
> It is the size of the accumulator.
> the 16 bit accumulator is the defining term, not instruction set, not 16
> bit processor (slang), not CRC, not code.
> The accumulator is part of the processor, it is hardware google for it.
> It is the size of the accumulator.
> the 16 bit accumulator is the defining term, not instruction set, not 16
> bit processor (slang), not CRC, not code.
> I don't have the time to learn you all that.
jimp said "instruction set", you stupid sack. Of course is the ALU, more
exactly the size (wideness) of the Registers, and also usually the size of
Data-Bus (usually read through a single-cycle). Jason Wyome is perfectly
right. You and jimps are morons.
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Dec 17, 2015, 6:53:12 AM12/17/15
to
John Heath wrote:
> Max Keon wrote:
---
---
---
sure what you're expecting to find here. The theory behind the
animation is not one bit compatible with SR. Probably the most
significant difference is that the propagation base for light
local to the earth is fixed with the non rotating ECI frame. The
screen frame is considered as being fixed with that frame. The
frame of the moving apparatus can never align with the screen
frame, and for reasons shown in the animated reality, the speed
of (light and time as one) will always run slower. But not
as slow as the geometry indicates. That will be the case from a
viewpoint in either frame.
I'm assuming that you want the text program that runs in Qbasic?
'--------
'This program simulates the motion of a device which consists of
'a light source which emits two wavefronts simultaneously in
'opposite directions that travel at a constant rate relative to
'the propagation base for light which is the screen in this case,
'to be reflected off mirrors and returned to the source.
ON TIMER(1) GOSUB tfix 'The next eight lines set the program
TIMER ON 'run speed to suit your computer
WHILE stp < 10 '(don't know why)
pp = pp + 1
WEND 'The routine isn't included in the .exe
tfix: 'file. FreeBasic doesn't accept it
ti = (pp / 10)
TIMER OFF
SCREEN 12
vx = 300
v = .5
tv: CLS
LOCATE 13, 24: PRINT "Pixel count for v=0 is 300"
COLOR 11: LOCATE 18, 32: PRINT "Mirrors"
COLOR 12: LOCATE 16, 30: PRINT "light paths"
COLOR 14: LOCATE 17, 31: PRINT "wavefronts"
COLOR 10: LOCATE 15, 30: PRINT "light source"
tm: COLOR 14
tx: aa = 160: bb = 154: cc = 180: dd = 154: ee = 4: ff = 154
a = 170: b = 170: c = 20: d = 320: e = 20: f = 320
g = 165: h = 175: s = 0: ss = 0
'Sets the start point of light source and mirror assembly.
LOCATE 14, 32: PRINT "v ="; v; "c"
COLOR 7
LOCATE 7, 22: PRINT "Wave fronts travel at a constant"
LOCATE 8, 26: PRINT "rate across the screen."
av: COLOR 7
LOCATE 12, 27: PRINT vw; "(pixel count)"
LINE (e, 154)-(f, 154), 12 'light paths
LINE (g, 149)-(h, 159), 10, B 'light source
LINE (c, 144)-(c, 164), 11 'left mirror
LINE (d, 144)-(d, 164), 11 'right mirror
LINE (a, 144)-(a, 164), 14 'left wave front
LINE (b, 144)-(b, 164), 14 'right wave front
FOR t = 1 TO ti / 4: NEXT t 'Graphics "on" timer.
IF a = b AND vw > 0 THEN GOTO ax
vw = vw + 1 'pixel count
IF vw > 850 THEN END
s$ = INKEY$: IF s$ = CHR$(27) THEN END
COLOR 0
LINE (e, 154)-(f, 154)
LINE (g, 149)-(h, 159), , B
LINE (c, 144)-(c, 164)
LINE (d, 144)-(d, 164)
LINE (a, 144)-(a, 164)
LINE (b, 144)-(b, 164)
IF a = c OR a < c THEN s = 1
IF a = d OR a > d THEN s = 0
IF b = d OR b > d THEN ss = 1
IF b = c OR b < c THEN ss = 0
IF s = 0 THEN a = a - 1
IF s = 1 THEN a = a + 1
IF ss = 0 THEN b = b + 1
IF ss = 1 THEN b = b - 1
c = c + v: d = d + v: e = e + v
f = f + v: g = g + v: h = h + v
GOTO av
ax:
COLOR 7
LOCATE 15, 18
PRINT "t'= t *"; vx; "/"; vw; "="; vx / vw; " (t=1)"
cy = 1
LOCATE 16, 18
PRINT "t'= t*sqr(1-v^2/c^2) ="; 1*SQR(1-v^2/cy^2); "is observed"
LOCATE 17, 18
PRINT "Or per Pythagoras a^2+b^2 = c^2 (where c=1)"
LOCATE 18, 18
PRINT "t' = SQR(c^2-v^2) ="; SQR(cy ^ 2 - v ^ 2); "sec'/sec"
vw = 0:
COLOR 3
LOCATE 20, 14: PRINT "Enter speed from 0 to 1 (1 = light speed)"
LOCATE 21, 14: INPUT ">.8 exits the program"; v
IF v > 1 THEN END
GOTO tv
'---program end---
-----
Max Keon
> Max Keon wrote:
---
---
>> I've added another .exe file to this page
>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/test4a.html
>> Example (2). How do you feel about downloading it? It poses
>> questions for Relativity. And my computer is secure (trust me).
>>
>> The number of steps involved in sending each beam from the light
>> source to the mirrors and back are counted. According to the
>> default cycle of the animated reality the time rate in the
>> relatively moving frame has slowed to t'= t*.75, but according to
>> observation it has slowed to t'= t*.866 . The discrepancy could
>> perhaps be accounted for if the distance between the mirrors was
>> to shrink to .866 of the original length. The shrinkage can't be
>> just an illusion that's generated by the relative motion of the
>> frame either, it must be real. The moving frame length is
>> measured in the screen frame and if it hasn't physically shrunk,
>> the time discrepancy could not be justified.
>>
>> The same will apply from the viewpoint in the FOR of the
>> mirror-source assembly. If that is deemed stationary and the
>> screen frame is moving at .5c the screen frame must also shrink
>> to .866 of its original length. In order to accommodate both
>> scenarios both frames have necessarily shrunk by that amount. But
>> that takes us back to square one again. Neither of them could
>> ever have been their original measured lengths. So we begin again
>> with two shorter frames. And arrive back at square one once
>> again.
---
>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/test4a.html
>> Example (2). How do you feel about downloading it? It poses
>> questions for Relativity. And my computer is secure (trust me).
>>
>> The number of steps involved in sending each beam from the light
>> source to the mirrors and back are counted. According to the
>> default cycle of the animated reality the time rate in the
>> relatively moving frame has slowed to t'= t*.75, but according to
>> observation it has slowed to t'= t*.866 . The discrepancy could
>> perhaps be accounted for if the distance between the mirrors was
>> to shrink to .866 of the original length. The shrinkage can't be
>> just an illusion that's generated by the relative motion of the
>> frame either, it must be real. The moving frame length is
>> measured in the screen frame and if it hasn't physically shrunk,
>> the time discrepancy could not be justified.
>>
>> The same will apply from the viewpoint in the FOR of the
>> mirror-source assembly. If that is deemed stationary and the
>> screen frame is moving at .5c the screen frame must also shrink
>> to .866 of its original length. In order to accommodate both
>> scenarios both frames have necessarily shrunk by that amount. But
>> that takes us back to square one again. Neither of them could
>> ever have been their original measured lengths. So we begin again
>> with two shorter frames. And arrive back at square one once
>> again.
---
>
> If you could copy and paste the source code here I could
> eyeball , run and possibly put a finger on why it is not
> tracking SR for gamma. It should have worked.
I apologize for the delay in getting back to you but I'm not too
> If you could copy and paste the source code here I could
> eyeball , run and possibly put a finger on why it is not
> tracking SR for gamma. It should have worked.
sure what you're expecting to find here. The theory behind the
animation is not one bit compatible with SR. Probably the most
significant difference is that the propagation base for light
local to the earth is fixed with the non rotating ECI frame. The
screen frame is considered as being fixed with that frame. The
frame of the moving apparatus can never align with the screen
frame, and for reasons shown in the animated reality, the speed
of (light and time as one) will always run slower. But not
as slow as the geometry indicates. That will be the case from a
viewpoint in either frame.
I'm assuming that you want the text program that runs in Qbasic?
'--------
'This program simulates the motion of a device which consists of
'a light source which emits two wavefronts simultaneously in
'opposite directions that travel at a constant rate relative to
'the propagation base for light which is the screen in this case,
'to be reflected off mirrors and returned to the source.
ON TIMER(1) GOSUB tfix 'The next eight lines set the program
TIMER ON 'run speed to suit your computer
WHILE stp < 10 '(don't know why)
pp = pp + 1
WEND 'The routine isn't included in the .exe
tfix: 'file. FreeBasic doesn't accept it
ti = (pp / 10)
TIMER OFF
SCREEN 12
vx = 300
v = .5
tv: CLS
LOCATE 13, 24: PRINT "Pixel count for v=0 is 300"
COLOR 11: LOCATE 18, 32: PRINT "Mirrors"
COLOR 12: LOCATE 16, 30: PRINT "light paths"
COLOR 14: LOCATE 17, 31: PRINT "wavefronts"
COLOR 10: LOCATE 15, 30: PRINT "light source"
tm: COLOR 14
tx: aa = 160: bb = 154: cc = 180: dd = 154: ee = 4: ff = 154
a = 170: b = 170: c = 20: d = 320: e = 20: f = 320
g = 165: h = 175: s = 0: ss = 0
'Sets the start point of light source and mirror assembly.
LOCATE 14, 32: PRINT "v ="; v; "c"
COLOR 7
LOCATE 7, 22: PRINT "Wave fronts travel at a constant"
LOCATE 8, 26: PRINT "rate across the screen."
av: COLOR 7
LOCATE 12, 27: PRINT vw; "(pixel count)"
LINE (e, 154)-(f, 154), 12 'light paths
LINE (g, 149)-(h, 159), 10, B 'light source
LINE (c, 144)-(c, 164), 11 'left mirror
LINE (d, 144)-(d, 164), 11 'right mirror
LINE (a, 144)-(a, 164), 14 'left wave front
LINE (b, 144)-(b, 164), 14 'right wave front
FOR t = 1 TO ti / 4: NEXT t 'Graphics "on" timer.
IF a = b AND vw > 0 THEN GOTO ax
vw = vw + 1 'pixel count
IF vw > 850 THEN END
s$ = INKEY$: IF s$ = CHR$(27) THEN END
COLOR 0
LINE (e, 154)-(f, 154)
LINE (g, 149)-(h, 159), , B
LINE (c, 144)-(c, 164)
LINE (d, 144)-(d, 164)
LINE (a, 144)-(a, 164)
LINE (b, 144)-(b, 164)
IF a = c OR a < c THEN s = 1
IF a = d OR a > d THEN s = 0
IF b = d OR b > d THEN ss = 1
IF b = c OR b < c THEN ss = 0
IF s = 0 THEN a = a - 1
IF s = 1 THEN a = a + 1
IF ss = 0 THEN b = b + 1
IF ss = 1 THEN b = b - 1
c = c + v: d = d + v: e = e + v
f = f + v: g = g + v: h = h + v
GOTO av
ax:
COLOR 7
LOCATE 15, 18
PRINT "t'= t *"; vx; "/"; vw; "="; vx / vw; " (t=1)"
cy = 1
LOCATE 16, 18
PRINT "t'= t*sqr(1-v^2/c^2) ="; 1*SQR(1-v^2/cy^2); "is observed"
LOCATE 17, 18
PRINT "Or per Pythagoras a^2+b^2 = c^2 (where c=1)"
LOCATE 18, 18
PRINT "t' = SQR(c^2-v^2) ="; SQR(cy ^ 2 - v ^ 2); "sec'/sec"
vw = 0:
COLOR 3
LOCATE 20, 14: PRINT "Enter speed from 0 to 1 (1 = light speed)"
LOCATE 21, 14: INPUT ">.8 exits the program"; v
IF v > 1 THEN END
GOTO tv
'---program end---
-----
Max Keon
John Heath
Dec 17, 2015, 7:59:19 AM12/17/15
to
John Heath
Dec 22, 2015, 2:45:24 AM12/22/15
to
ON TIMER(1) GOSUB tfix 'The next eight lines set the program
TIMER ON 'run speed to suit your computer
pp = pp + 1
WEND 'The routine isn't included in the .exe
tfix: 'file. FreeBasic doesn't accept it
' print " pp ";pp
WEND 'The routine isn't included in the .exe
tfix: 'file. FreeBasic doesn't accept it
' sleep
ti = (pp / 10)
TIMER OFF
spt is just a variable set to zero when the program starts. stp < 10 is always true so the while wend loop will never stop. However you set on timer (1) so in 1 second it leaves the while loop to gosub tfix: . While 1 = 1 is also always true so the while loop will run continuously until the timer stops it in 1 second. In both cases pp is set to 28,000 on my computer making ti 2,800 to set the timing. Your graphic speed looks great on my computer so your timing algorithm for different computer speeds is working. Again nice little program. Well done.
TIMER OFF
msk...@optusnet.com.au
Dec 25, 2015, 9:28:32 PM12/25/15
to
John Heath wrote:
---
---
going to help with my current problem. Most other folk would need
to be running dosbox as well. It's all in the hands of the O/S
software manufacturers.
> I like it. Well done. Also in a leap of faith I change
> "while stp < 10 to 1 = 1 so it reads
>
> ON TIMER(1) GOSUB tfix 'The next eight lines set the program
> TIMER ON 'run speed to suit your computer
>
> WHILE 1 = 1 'stp < 10 '(don't know why)
> pp = pp + 1
> WEND 'The routine isn't included in the .exe
>
> tfix: 'file. FreeBasic doesn't accept it
> ' print " pp ";pp
> ' sleep
> ti = (pp / 10)
> TIMER OFF
>
> spt is just a variable set to zero when the program starts.
> stp < 10 is always true so the while wend loop will never stop.
> However you set on timer (1) so in 1 second it leaves the while
> loop to gosub tfix: . While 1 = 1 is also always true so the
> while loop will run continuously until the timer stops it in 1
> second. In both cases pp is set to 28,000 on my computer making
> ti 2,800 to set the timing. Your graphic speed looks great on my
> computer so your timing algorithm for different computer speeds
> is working. Again nice little program. Well done.
Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't realize that the timer
could trigger a change in the WHILE.....WEND loop when it clicked
over each second. That certainly wasn't expected.
I fiddled around with the numbers and I found that my Windows XP
computer is running 11 times faster than my Windows 98 computer.
aa:
ON TIMER(1) GOSUB ab
TIMER ON
WHILE x < 1
y = y + 1
WEND
ab:
'' TIMER OFF
PRINT y; "y"
PRINT x; "x"
y = 0
GOTO aa
y=290000 and y=26000 respectively (roughly).
x is always zero of course.
The program ends with "out of stack space error".
Ctrl-Break halts a program at any time (as you
obviously know).
Thanks again.
-----
Max Keon
---
---
> Now have dosbox on this computer so I ran your program.
I should install dosbox on my Windows 7 computer, but that's not
going to help with my current problem. Most other folk would need
to be running dosbox as well. It's all in the hands of the O/S
software manufacturers.
> I like it. Well done. Also in a leap of faith I change
> "while stp < 10 to 1 = 1 so it reads
>
> ON TIMER(1) GOSUB tfix 'The next eight lines set the program
> TIMER ON 'run speed to suit your computer
>
> WHILE 1 = 1 'stp < 10 '(don't know why)
> pp = pp + 1
> WEND 'The routine isn't included in the .exe
>
> tfix: 'file. FreeBasic doesn't accept it
> ' print " pp ";pp
> ' sleep
> ti = (pp / 10)
> TIMER OFF
>
> spt is just a variable set to zero when the program starts.
> stp < 10 is always true so the while wend loop will never stop.
> However you set on timer (1) so in 1 second it leaves the while
> loop to gosub tfix: . While 1 = 1 is also always true so the
> while loop will run continuously until the timer stops it in 1
> second. In both cases pp is set to 28,000 on my computer making
> ti 2,800 to set the timing. Your graphic speed looks great on my
> computer so your timing algorithm for different computer speeds
> is working. Again nice little program. Well done.
could trigger a change in the WHILE.....WEND loop when it clicked
over each second. That certainly wasn't expected.
I fiddled around with the numbers and I found that my Windows XP
computer is running 11 times faster than my Windows 98 computer.
aa:
ON TIMER(1) GOSUB ab
TIMER ON
WHILE x < 1
y = y + 1
WEND
ab:
'' TIMER OFF
PRINT y; "y"
PRINT x; "x"
y = 0
GOTO aa
y=290000 and y=26000 respectively (roughly).
x is always zero of course.
The program ends with "out of stack space error".
Ctrl-Break halts a program at any time (as you
obviously know).
Thanks again.
-----
Max Keon
John Heath
Dec 26, 2015, 4:55:21 AM12/26/15
to
Einstein hires a bean counter , John G Kemeny , to help him out with some calculations. John G Kemeny finds this demanding and later develops a symbolic machine language called BASIC to deal with such problems. Bill Gates buys the rights to John G Kemeny's language which becomes G.W. BASIC then late QBASIC. Here you are working in QBASIC to demonstrate a Einstein thought experiment. The ironic historical loop is complete right back to Einstein.
0 new messages