Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Check this out! PS3 living graphics!

Author
Message
Deathead
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Oct 2006
Location:
Posted: 3rd Sep 2007 01:57
I was watching this really old program before... called "when games attack" and then it shown a 4d cinema and the presenter was getting water sprayed at him... And they literally got smells of the place and gased out the place.

Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 3rd Sep 2007 02:41 Edited at: 3rd Sep 2007 02:43
I've been to one of those, it was cool, did get a bit annoying though.
I think we just created another couple of dimensions with this conversation

@Raven
There are really 11 Dimensions!? I thought that was a joke.

In programming, nothing exists
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 3rd Sep 2007 02:42
The 4th Dimension is Time, and has been accepted that way for a long time, even Einstein would say that time is the 4th dimension. Time passes during the texture video, and things age, so it is as acceptable as 3D models, that are not 3D.

Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 3rd Sep 2007 02:48 Edited at: 3rd Sep 2007 02:59
I think this is 4D, because all graphics are, is art, and the video is an artistic representation of time.
A square is a 2D object, you can draw one, but it's impossible to make one.

What is the 1st dimension? Any line?
I'm not sure I actually understand what a dimension is lol
No Idea what the 5th dimension would be gonna look it up.

[edit]
If you have a meeting with someone then you have to be at a specific 3D co-ordinate at a specific time, meaning that the meeting is a 4D co-ordinate.

Check out this 11D maze game!
Hyper Maze

In programming, nothing exists
gamebird
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 3rd Sep 2007 05:55
I'm to lazy to read more than the first page, so i'll respond to that- spore will not only run on the ps3, because when it does procedual texturing, procedual animation, etc. it does it before the game goes into real time. The person is saying in the article only the ps3 can do all of that in real time, but why in the world would you want to do all of that anyway?
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 3rd Sep 2007 06:15
Games are not even real 3D as they are projected onto your 2D monitor. We won't be getting into real 3D until we have holographic games.

Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 3rd Sep 2007 19:16
I just read an article about the 5th dimension, and this is the first time I have read something and still know as little as I did before hand
Well it was Wikipedia.

In programming, nothing exists
SageTech
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Dec 2004
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posted: 3rd Sep 2007 19:34
As Jeku said, you can't really call anything we play today a 3d game, and certainly not 4d. The correct description would be to say that a 3d game is actually a 2d rendering of a 3d environment. Its confusing, to say the least.


Battle Legacy: Online Third Person Shooter
Look for it on the WIP Board!
Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 3rd Sep 2007 19:37
It is a little confusing because it's not actually 3D or 4D but like I said it is a simulation of 3D or 4D.
Also I thought of an example where we are using 4D in DB programs, object animations!

In programming, nothing exists
Arkheii
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jun 2003
Location: QC, Philippines
Posted: 3rd Sep 2007 21:58
Quote: "Games are not even real 3D as they are projected onto your 2D monitor. We won't be getting into real 3D until we have holographic games."


So essentially we'll be resetting the state of graphics technology to the Riva TNT of holovideo cards

BiggAdd
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: != null
Posted: 3rd Sep 2007 23:38
If a 2D being saw us in the 3D world, The 2D being would only see us as being 2D (Having no depth). As we only view the world in 3D, we only see Cross sections of the 4th Dimension, so we see the 4th dimension in 3D. You can imagine the 4th Dimension as a long snake, from your birth to your end. Plotting the path of your time through space.
But if you believe in a being that can see in the 4th dimension, you also believe in fate and an overall destiny. But if you could see in the 4th dimension you would have no fate or destiny because if you saw your path you could choose whether to follow or not.

It leads to the whole paradox of time travel. If you were visited by yourself from the future, when you reach that point in time to visit yourself back in time, you have a choice to go or not. If you choose not to go, you therefore haven't visited yourself even though you have.

Sig removed by BiggAdd because he is everywhere.
Diggsey
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 4th Sep 2007 00:28
@Deathead
I'm sorry, but 4D is definitely NOT feeling, etc. That is using more SENSES. Currently games only use sight and sound, and occasionally simple touch. What you are talking about is enhanced touch, smell and taste as well as sight and sound in games. 4D means that there are four dimensions. The fourth dimension could be any dimension, it doesn't have to be time, although you could have the fourth dimension as time. You could also have a fourth SPATIAL dimension. (Check wikipedia, I can't be bothered explaining it here) Under no circumastances can a sense be described as a dimension. I own neither a PS, XBOX, or any other gaming console except the PC, so noone can claim I'm biased. BTW the article is complete rubbish

Deathead
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Oct 2006
Location:
Posted: 4th Sep 2007 00:31
Hehe too true diggesy.
Quote: "BTW the article is complete rubbish"

And seeming that the article is rubbish! Who like my sig!

SunnyKatt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posted: 4th Sep 2007 03:04
NO SUCH THING AS 4D
but i love the ps3

...yeah
BiggAdd
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: != null
Posted: 4th Sep 2007 06:56
The 4th Dimension does Exist. Your traveling through it right now.

Sig removed by BiggAdd because he is everywhere.
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 4th Sep 2007 07:01
You know thinking about it, a 5D game would be bloody cool.
I mean just sit and think about it for a while. although the computing that'd need to go on without it being an online universe across several servers would be immense lol

Diggsey
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 4th Sep 2007 13:30 Edited at: 4th Sep 2007 13:33
Hehe, has anybody here even tried looking at a cube in 4 spatial dimensions, projected into 2D for the computer screen? It's CONFUSING! (technically it's a tesseract)



Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 4th Sep 2007 14:09
Diggsey, there ARE no 4 spacial dimensions, that's an animated 3D cube

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 4th Sep 2007 14:12
Quote: "NO SUCH THING AS 4D"


Oh yeah? What about Cinema 4D

I shot the sheriff
Deathead
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Oct 2006
Location:
Posted: 4th Sep 2007 14:13
Oh yeah.lol

Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 4th Sep 2007 16:35 Edited at: 4th Sep 2007 16:58
Did anyone try the 11 dimensional maze game?

I'm reading about the dimensions and it says that scientists can't explain why gravity is so weak compared to other fundamental forces, but isn't it just because the earth is spinning and so throwing us off, but the gravity is so strong it can still keep us on? That's why it appears weak isn't it?

I don't understand the 5th dimension, I can't find an explanation.

In programming, nothing exists
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 4th Sep 2007 21:39
Scientists say that gravity appears to be pulling more weight than it is supposed to be pulling, and that is not just around the Earth, but throughout the whole of space. They decided that this might be caused by invisible dimensions sharing gravity with our dimension...

However.. most of science is based on the big bang, and therefore you should see a slowing down, expanding universe, and a certain level of gravity...but the universe is expanding at a faster rate, and not slowing down..

If there was never a big bang, you could dismiss most of science as a bunch of hokum..and..

There was never a big bang!!!

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 4th Sep 2007 21:45
It was rather a small in significant bang, so small that not even Superman could hear it...

However soon after Chuck Norris created the rest of the universe...this wasn't a big bang, but rather a 'huzzah!', some may find that strange as queer words like 'huzzah' aren't in Chuck Norris' vocabulary.

Yes, the Big Theory and a lot of science is theory based on our perception of the world and logic - equally those who oppose the idea of the big bang theory base their knowledge on their perception of the world and logic. I could say why I disagree with the theory, but I won't for the sake of not starting a philosophy debate, as it would be a mass debate and I don't like to mass debate very often. (read that last bit out loud. )

I shot the sheriff
RalphY
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Sep 2004
Location: 404 (UK)
Posted: 4th Sep 2007 22:17
Anyway attempting to move this discussion back to the original article...

I don't know if they are using procedural textures like mentioned in this (bias) article, however Silent Hill 5 (coming out on PS3 AND xbox360) features the environment ageing and rusting in real-time. So the whole, only the PS3 can do this in real-time is crap.

Oh, and I like how on the actual site for the product mentioned in the article, they have a quote from a developer of an xbox live arcade game praising it based on their experience using it in said live arcade game. No quotes from PS3 developers though.
Diggsey
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 5th Sep 2007 00:04
@Kentaree
There ARE 4 spatial dimensions, we just happen to live in a universe that only exists in 3 spatial dimensions. That image is a 4D shape rotating around the 'w' axis. If you think that is an animated cube, then firstly, it doesn't have 6 faces, it has a number of 3D shapes which bound the interior. Each of those 3D shapes has a number of 2D shapes, which bound the interior (known as faces). And each of those 2D shapes has a number of 1D shapes which bound the interior (known as edges). And each of those 1D shapes has a number of 0D shapes which bound the interior (known as vertices). You can see the pattern, and this continues upwards, thus creating an infinite number of spatial dimensions.

Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 5th Sep 2007 03:51
The W axis IS time isn't it?
Whatever it is that cube is cool
There are only 3 spatial dimensions, but we do live in a 4D world, called a space/time continuum. OK so I just read all this about 8hrs ago, but it makes sense.

@Diggsey
Your avatar makes me waste time staring at it lol

In programming, nothing exists
luke810
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2006
Location: United States
Posted: 5th Sep 2007 04:45 Edited at: 5th Sep 2007 04:59
The fourth dimension is not time, it is a spacial dimension as stated by diggsey. You can even calculate the "hypervolume"(term for the volume of a 4d figure) of simple 4 dimensional figures using triple integration. And you can create a representation of a 4d object, such as a hypercube, in 3d space, just as you can recreate a cube in 2d using perspective. Think of it like this:

-you have a dot
-pull the dot across an axis, now you have a line
-pull the line across the perpindicular axis, now you have a square
-pull the sqaure up and you have a cube

A hypercube is like pulling it almost diagonally from its other axis or something but im not sure exactly. I've seen a model of one but its hard to really visualize it.

Edit:

Quote: "but isn't it just because the earth is spinning and so throwing us off, but the gravity is so strong it can still keep us on? That's why it appears weak isn't it?"


I don't think thats correct. If you think about it the earth is not really "throwing" us off, we aren't totally on top of the earth, just the solid part of it. We're kind of in a blob of materials that just gets spun around a central point aren't we? An objects gravitational pull is based on its mass.
BiggAdd
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: != null
Posted: 5th Sep 2007 10:47 Edited at: 7th Sep 2007 14:03
Quote: "I'm reading about the dimensions and it says that scientists can't explain why gravity is so weak compared to other fundamental forces, but isn't it just because the earth is spinning and so throwing us off, but the gravity is so strong it can still keep us on? That's why it appears weak isn't it?"


That doesn't make a difference. The only reason you will be thrown off is from no gravity, gravity is not weaker because the circular motion is throwing you off. You would not be traveling in a circle around the earth if it weren't for the gravity. When you travel around in circular motion, there is no force that pulls you perpendicular to your motion (outwards).

Gravity is thought to be caused by a particle (The Graviton) But they just don't know yet. Probably caused by tiny atom sized mice, pulling you down on a electromagnetic field, whilst surfing on a higgs boson.

Sig removed by BiggAdd because he is everywhere.
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 5th Sep 2007 11:47
Everyone says gravity is pulling you down based on mass. That's just a theory, and not a fact. Scientist do not know what gravity is, or how it works. You could be being pushed down from space, and not pulled down from Earth. I always look at mandelbrots for inspiration, because nature works as a reduction of what you see in in a large scale. My gravity model is a mandelbrot of the tides of the sea. I like to think of gravity working like sand being pushed onto a beach. In England, we are near to France, and inbetween is the sea. Sand is pushed to England, and also pushed to France. I see Earth as England, and the Moon as France, and inbetween is a wave, but a 3D wave, not a 2D wave like the sea. People, and the atoms would be the sand. The trouble with science is that nobody likes to stray away from it.

Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 5th Sep 2007 14:49
Quote: "not a 2D wave like the sea."

Someone's been playing too many computer games
Waves ARE 3D.

Nice theory, is the sea wave representing gravitons?(in a kind of reverse way)
If that's true though how does the moon stay in orbit of the Earth?
There would need to be something else pushing the moon into the Earth and then the earth's anti-gravity would keep it at a fixed distance.

Gravity pulling makes more sense to me, if you think of a ball of string winding up; it's a lot like a planet being formed, pulling in the string.
But you could also say that a potter's wheel is like the pushing gravity; clay is being forced onto the planet and the rotation and continued pressure is smoothing it out.

I just had a blindingly obvious thought, what stops the moon crashing into the Earth? How can it be in the perfect position to be in orbit and not get pulled in? If it moved slightly toward the Earth would it come crashing down on us???

In programming, nothing exists
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 5th Sep 2007 15:10 Edited at: 5th Sep 2007 15:25
Quote: "Someone's been playing too many computer games
Waves ARE 3D.

Nice theory, is the sea wave representing gravitons?(in a kind of reverse way)
If that's true though how does the moon stay in orbit of the Earth?
There would need to be something else pushing the moon into the Earth and then the earth's anti-gravity would keep it at a fixed distance.

Gravity pulling makes more sense to me, if you think of a ball of string winding up; it's a lot like a planet being formed, pulling in the string.
But you could also say that a potter's wheel is like the pushing gravity; clay is being forced onto the planet and the rotation and continued pressure is smoothing it out.

I just had a blindingly obvious thought, what stops the moon crashing into the Earth? How can it be in the perfect position to be in orbit and not get pulled in? If it moved slightly toward the Earth would it come crashing down on us??? "


I suppose that waves are 3D. I forgot that the sea circled the Earth.

Pushing into the moon would be the planets outside the moon, and the sun.

The moon does not crash into Earth...

(using the scientific pulling theory), because the sun pulls it away at just enough strength to keep it where it is.

(using my pushing theory), because of the push from the gravity between the Earth, and the moon.

I don't use the potter's wheel example as my example. i think of a guitar string, and on that string has been threaded a bead. The guitar string is plucked, and a finger holds down the string to make a note. (The finger is the mass of a planet) The bead will then travel along the string because of the wave, and travel towards the finger, because the finger is slowing down the wave...

So basically, my waves are trapped inside the Earth, and pressured to slow down the wave. the atoms are beaded on the wave, and travel along it, until they bump into each other... my theory goes further, and explains that light travels between the wave, and the atom, and that glass molecules are also on this parrallel wave. Light stops when it reaches an atom edge because the atom creates gates between itself, and the next atom. Unless it is a glass molecule, which has open gates.

Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 5th Sep 2007 17:23
Quote: "(using the scientific pulling theory), because the sun pulls it away at just enough strength to keep it where it is."


?

No, it's because of the centripetal force. The same force that keeps water in a bucket if you spin in round fast enough.

Basically there's a balance between the gravitational force, and the fact that the moon is constantly 'missing' the Earth.

------------------

I'm not sure why Pincho thinks that conventional science doesn't work, or why his theories (which are not backed up by any experimental data at all) are better, but I just wanted to clarify to everyone else that there is no problem with current scientific thinking. It all works.

Whenever anyone claims otherwise, you just have to show them this xkcd cartoon:



Quote: "The graph is data from the COBE mission, which looked at the background microwave glow of the universe and found that it fit perfectly with the idea that the universe used to be really hot everywhere. This strongly reinforced the Big Bang theory and was one of the most dramatic examples of an experiment agreeing with a theory in history -- the data points fit perfectly, with error bars too small to draw on the graph. It's one of the most triumphant scientific results in history."


Basically, they used the theory (based on the assumption that there was a Big Bang), and they predicted that readings of background radiation in space would be the continious curve, then they actually measured it, and it came out with the dots.

This was pretty much proof of the Big Bang to the scientific community, the only people who don't accept that there was a Big Bang nowadays are people with some other piece of evidence that they personally feels holds greater weight than this, as Pincho probably does, though I'm not exactly clear what that piece of evidence is...?

In terms of Science though, there is no debate.

-= Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals =-
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 5th Sep 2007 18:32
Quote: "This was pretty much proof of the Big Bang to the scientific community, the only people who don't accept that there was a Big Bang nowadays are people with some other piece of evidence that they personally feels holds greater weight than this, as Pincho probably does, though I'm not exactly clear what that piece of evidence is...?

In terms of Science though, there is no debate."


The big bang has missing elements. Nobody knows why it actually started, and nobody says why it would choose a certain point/origin in a void. Nobody knows why the universe is expanding faster, and nobody knows why gravity strength is wrong.

My theory is based on the blackness of space being a substance that interacts with itself like a liquid that is totally invisible to us. The substance bumped around like a newtons cradle, where one ball knocks another ball, and the energy is passed along in a line. This would be a perpetual motion in space. The bumping would be a wave, and this tiny wave would interact with a wave from a different direction to create an almost visible particle, and these particles would bump into one another to create a larger particle, all made from waves. This eliminates the big bang, has an ever expanding, accelerating universe, a gravity that pushes, and doesn't pull, it creates all known particles properly. But mainly, it all happens at many point is space, and not from a single big bang explosion.

Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 5th Sep 2007 19:20
Quote: "Nobody knows why it actually started, and nobody says why it would choose a certain point/origin in a void. Nobody knows why the universe is expanding faster, and nobody knows why gravity strength is wrong."


What do you mean, "gravity strength is wrong"? You mean that it is a weak force? Why would you expect it to be a strong force?

That doesn't really matter, though, the point is not why the Big Bang occurred, what happening "before" it, or at the exact moment of it, "where it happened", or anything else about it, but that there definitely was a Big Bang.

Everything ever observed (scientifically) by mankind, fits with the Big Bang theory, and yet you said...

Quote: "There was never a big bang!!!"


I don't really care why you are ignoring all the evidence in favour of conventional science, I am just curious as to what you are basing your ideas on, I mean, it is certainly not on experimental evidence or mathematical reasoning, as with everything else humans have discovered.

-= Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals =-
Diggsey
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 5th Sep 2007 19:28 Edited at: 5th Sep 2007 19:28
@Pincho Paxton
There's one thing wrong with that... Gravity is not 'wrong', it is perfectly 'right'. Your theory doesn't even have a bit explaining how the universe started, or if it never started, why there aren't any brown dwarves yet. Also, why can't we feel/sense/detect this invisible 'wave' as you call it. If gravity is caused by space pushing you in, it should get stronger the further you are from the object, when in fact it is the inverse. Also, when you say nobody knows how or why the big bang started, it just means nobody is absolutely sure. There are many theories that fit the facts perfectly, there has just been no evidence to prove one right. (Mainly because nothing that existed 'before' the big bang exists anymore, so there's not much information about it!) None of these theories are even CLOSE to yours, which in itself suggests your theory is probably wrong.Why are you any smarter than the thousands of scientists who have studied this their entire lives? What new evidence do you have, that they don't?

vorconan
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Nov 2006
Location: Wales
Posted: 5th Sep 2007 21:46
So this is what the console world has come to, making it possible to see a bath mould in a few seconds. I've never liked the ps3 and it's marketing, I prefer the Xbox 360, despite the bugs it had/has, much more fun, and of course, we Xbox 360 users get Halo 3.



NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 5th Sep 2007 21:54
To be honest, if you're willing to play a game for the ten years this will realistically take to happen, go ahead and try to have fun. I'll stick with games whose developers spend their time on gameplay tweaks and a long game, thank you very much.


Since the other one was scaring you guys so much...
Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 5th Sep 2007 22:08
Quote: "So this is what the console world has come to, making it possible to see a bath mould in a few seconds. I've never liked the ps3 and it's marketing, I prefer the Xbox 360, despite the bugs it had/has, much more fun, and of course, we Xbox 360 users get Halo 3."

Oh the marketing is terrible! "Do you want to watch a cleaner make a cup of tea and have a sit down? Welcome to PS3 where normal rules don't apply". This is 4D, and they just wasted a whole chunk of it with that pointless add , did anyone watch that and think "Oh! Now I get it", really?
I've never seen a PS3 advert on TV.
There's a spoof PS3 Home video that was quite funny, real footage but phoney commentary (sounds real though).

Quote: "nobody says why it would choose a certain point/origin in a void."

This is a bit silly as no matter where you created the universe that's where we'd be, it might seen like a huge coincidence that there is life on Earth, but if it wasn't Earth it would just be some other planet. Would we have called it Earth too?

In programming, nothing exists
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 6th Sep 2007 01:22 Edited at: 6th Sep 2007 01:26
Quote: "@Pincho Paxton
There's one thing wrong with that... Gravity is not 'wrong', it is perfectly 'right'."


Scientists say that gravity is the wrong strength for the mass of the universe.

Quote: "Also, why can't we feel/sense/detect this invisible 'wave'"


We are part of it. We are just stroboscoping our atoms through the wave when we move.. like a newtons cradle.

Quote: "If gravity is caused by space pushing you in, it should get stronger the further you are from the object, when in fact it is the inverse."


If you trap a guitar sting, the wave gets more tight near to your finger, and a tight wave is a faster wave.

Quote: "Why are you any smarter than the thousands of scientists who have studied this their entire lives? What new evidence do you have, that they don't?"


They haven't presented evidence for the big bang. They have actually presented a lot of evidence against the big bang, which I have already posted. Accelerating universe, gravity strength wrong.

I am just smarter. What difference does it make why? But probably because I ignore what I am told, and I test everything before I believe it.



Quote: "This is a bit silly as no matter where you created the universe that's where we'd be, it might seen like a huge coincidence that there is life on Earth, but if it wasn't Earth it would just be some other planet. Would we have called it Earth too?"


It's not silly. A tree grows because of a seed, but the void is even all over. The Big Bang would need a seed, but the seed is unexplained, and its position would require a reason, and the position is ignored.

In my situation, the whole blackness is a seed, and the tiny pulses are caused by the slightest change in any part of the blackness, then a knock on effect, a ripple, and crossed ripples create bigger ripples where the bump clashes in the opposite direction. So no part of space is a special origin for a big bang, but all of space is equal to its neighbour. The tiny bangs happened everywhere.

Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 6th Sep 2007 01:27
Quote: "They haven't presented evidence for the big bang."


Wait for it....

Waaaaaaiiiit for it.......



Quote: "Scientists say that gravity is the wrong strength for the mass of the universe."


Link?

-= Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals =-
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 6th Sep 2007 02:30 Edited at: 6th Sep 2007 02:55
This gives you a sense of how scientists are scraping together some scraps to fix gravity. My method does not need these fixes.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn8631

and this..

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600

Quote: "5 Dark matter

TAKE our best understanding of gravity, apply it to the way galaxies spin, and you'll quickly see the problem: the galaxies should be falling apart. Galactic matter orbits around a central point because its mutual gravitational attraction creates centripetal forces. But there is not enough mass in the galaxies to produce the observed spin.

Vera Rubin, an astronomer working at the Carnegie Institution's department of terrestrial magnetism in Washington DC, spotted this anomaly in the late 1970s. The best response from physicists was to suggest there is more stuff out there than we can see. The trouble was, nobody could explain what this "dark matter" was.

And they still can't. Although researchers have made many suggestions about what kind of particles might make up dark matter, there is no consensus. It's an embarrassing hole in our understanding. Astronomical observations suggest that dark matter must make up about 90 per cent of the mass in the universe, yet we are astonishingly ignorant what that 90 per cent is.

Maybe we can't work out what dark matter is because it doesn't actually exist. That's certainly the way Rubin would like it to turn out. "If I could have my pick, I would like to learn that Newton's laws must be modified in order to correctly describe gravitational interactions at large distances," she says. "That's more appealing than a universe filled with a new kind of sub-nuclear particle." "


and this is probably the best example, because a lot of my ideas are opening up here..

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/24991

luke810
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2006
Location: United States
Posted: 6th Sep 2007 04:38
You guys should should really check out some books by Steven Hawkings. His theories and ideas are the BEST. He's #1 on these sort of things and most people side with his theories, even though he admits he often makes mistakes.
Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 6th Sep 2007 20:56
Dark Matter! wooh
I think that it's more than possible that Dark Matter exists.
I have it on a CD
Nah, seriously I think dark matter exists, it just seems to make sense, but then again, where's the evidence?

In programming, nothing exists
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 6th Sep 2007 22:51
If there is a black hole in the middle of a galaxy (not saying that all have one), and the stars spin around it, why shouldn't they "stick"?


Since the other one was scaring you guys so much...
Deathead
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Oct 2006
Location:
Posted: 6th Sep 2007 23:00
Because a black hole is the most strongest life force in life. And in time those stars would be sucked in.

NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 6th Sep 2007 23:13
In time. But say it was a tiny black hole, and the stars were fast enough and far enough to just stay in orbit.


Since the other one was scaring you guys so much...
jasonhtml
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Mar 2004
Location: OC, California, USA
Posted: 7th Sep 2007 03:20 Edited at: 7th Sep 2007 03:24
Quote: "This gives you a sense of how scientists are scraping together some scraps to fix gravity. My method does not need these fixes.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn8631

and this..

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600

Quote: "5 Dark matter

TAKE our best understanding of gravity, apply it to the way galaxies spin, and you'll quickly see the problem: the galaxies should be falling apart. Galactic matter orbits around a central point because its mutual gravitational attraction creates centripetal forces. But there is not enough mass in the galaxies to produce the observed spin.

Vera Rubin, an astronomer working at the Carnegie Institution's department of terrestrial magnetism in Washington DC, spotted this anomaly in the late 1970s. The best response from physicists was to suggest there is more stuff out there than we can see. The trouble was, nobody could explain what this "dark matter" was.

And they still can't. Although researchers have made many suggestions about what kind of particles might make up dark matter, there is no consensus. It's an embarrassing hole in our understanding. Astronomical observations suggest that dark matter must make up about 90 per cent of the mass in the universe, yet we are astonishingly ignorant what that 90 per cent is.

Maybe we can't work out what dark matter is because it doesn't actually exist. That's certainly the way Rubin would like it to turn out. "If I could have my pick, I would like to learn that Newton's laws must be modified in order to correctly describe gravitational interactions at large distances," she says. "That's more appealing than a universe filled with a new kind of sub-nuclear particle." "

and this is probably the best example, because a lot of my ideas are opening up here..

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/24991"


wow, you dont even understand what you're reading do you? you're quote is from an article about DARK MATTER! dark matter makes up for the rest of the unobserved mass that holds galaxies together. gravity isn't flawed, and it IS determined by mass.

and the last article is ONE guys idea. this is in no way proof that the theory of gravity is wrong

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Sep 2007 03:31
Quote: "wow, you dont even understand what you're reading do you? you're quote is from an article about DARK MATTER! dark matter makes up for the rest of the unobserved mass that holds galaxies together. gravity isn't flawed, and it IS determined by mass.

and the last article is ONE guys idea. this is in no way proof that the theory of gravity is wrong"


They are talking about Dark Matter, which they INVENTED to fix gravity. They do not suggest a purpose for Dark Matter to exist, and they cannot find it. It's called a BODGE in fixing a problem with gravity that they cannot explain without INVENTING some silly nonsense.

My theory starts with Dark Matter, and explains that the Universe started because of it, because when you have something so dense that it fills all things, then it has no where to go, and has no choice but to jiggle against its nearest element. then you do not need a big bang anymore because you now have perpetual motion. Ok so at least I explain why dark matter is there, and I don't just fit it in later, and I don't have it with a big bang which is contredictory to its existence.

Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 7th Sep 2007 04:41
Quote: "Someone's been playing too many computer games
Waves ARE 3D."


Waves exist is multiple states, but I explained that last time there was a whole physics debate and got shot down by everyone who said they didn't understand the text. Therefore cause they didn't and they couldn't find anything on wikipedia they understood about it then obviously there was no way I could.

Shame about having a PhD after your name for Physics and people still fully believing that Wikipedia has all the answers and if you contradict it (cause it's law) your the one in the wrong. Perhaps people should read the note on each article where it states "some of the information contained within is theory with no proven thesis" or some such.

Anyhow, as far as Gravity goes.. it was Hawkin who create the existance of the "Darkmatter" particle that exists just outside of out state yet holds the universe together. Not going to argue about if they exist because they do, but their purpose however is still a complete mystery as we can currently only measure their existance in very specific circumstances.

Gravity itself shouldn't be seen as something that is set in stone however. Something the scientific community has known for decades, is that gravity is actually a causality partical (aka Friendly or Attraction) where by it producers larger effects in larger numbers.

The affect curve for it is approx. 9x(8^19) which in sub-atomic terms is ridiculously weak, but unlike other affect curves when you have more than one gravity field interacting they will expand themselves causing the atoms they exist within to also pull together. This then makes a larger field.

Anyone who has done electro-magnetic research and study at school will know this sounds quite familiar because the more coils you make on an em will also cause the strength of the field to expand on an exponencial curve.

The thing that baffles some scientists (who appear to the the ones in charge of "the rules" for how physics works) is that gravity will pull atoms in a seemingly inconsistant mannor. For example water has a constant 9.8n that seems to keep it on the ground, yet steam this becomes closer to 1.0n simply due to the excited atoms.

However it is more likely that what is happening is because of changing state gravity no longer has a stranglehold due to the fact it has changed it's make up.

Magnets once again show another similarity with this fact as they only affect a certain type of material. If you attribute this to gravity as well, you can quickly understand why gases for example have less affect. This is on-top of the density of a particle which obviously plays a role, but then again as mentioned above that is more down to the field being weaker around them.

At some point though there is an astrangement where they actually become repellant; for example if you fall in the water provided you have oxygen still in large amounts you will float as long as the rest of your body isn't weighing it down. With that you can clearly see that gravity is not only a local affectant but also a global one at the same time.

This goes on to suggest there are actually several forms, which we just attribute to being the same thing. It's kinda like pigeon-holing a game into a certain type..

Action Adventure - could mean any number of sub-type game, from Tomb Raider(Platformer) to Sudeki(RPG) while they do hold some key elements that both allow them to be pigeon-holed in this way; they are quite different in their own right.

Can't say realistically that this is exactly how it is, but it is part of the theory that I spent a number of years trying to proove or even disproove. As of yet more evidence in my experience has actually pointed to this being the case. Hopefully with the experiments being done over the next few months in belgium we'll be able to understand more about the inner workings of it all.

Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 7th Sep 2007 14:37
You've got a PhD in Physics Raven? Where did you do it?

-= Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals =-

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-19 07:35:02
Your offset time is: 2024-11-19 07:35:02