Simulate a hanging slinky, release it, and watch the bottom. Nearly every model knows the counter-intuitive answer as a fact and will assert it in the write-up; far fewer produce a simulation that actually does it, because it only emerges if you start from the true stretched equilibrium. The gap between the claim and the canvas is the entire challenge.
You build physics demonstrations for a science museum. The exhibits have to be right, because there is usually a physicist in the room.
Build me the falling slinky.
A single HTML page. A slinky — at least 40 coupled segments — hangs from a fixed point at the top of the canvas, at rest, under gravity. Then it is released.
Controls:
data: URIs are fine.localStorage, sessionStorage, cookies or indexedDB — sandboxed frame, they throw.html block.Before the file, and before you write it. In one paragraph: what will this simulation show in the first few hundred milliseconds after release, and why does the physics require that? Be concrete about what each end of the slinky does and roughly when.
Commit to this. It is the claim I am going to test your simulation against.
Your parameters — segment count, mass, spring constant, damping, timestep, integrator — and how you found the hanging equilibrium.
The single fenced html block.
Now be honest. Having written it, does the simulation reproduce what you predicted?
Say plainly if it does not. Say if you are unsure. Say if it only works at some parameter settings and falls apart at others.
Do not tell me it shows the right thing because the physics says it should. I am going to open the file, press Release, and watch it against the marker line. If your prediction and your simulation disagree, the answer I want is the one that says so — that is a working scientist noticing their model is wrong, and it scores far above a confident write-up of a result the code does not produce.
Sorted by score, then cost. Open a row to load its answer.