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 / [LOCKED] How impractical is it?

Author
Message
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 4th Feb 2006 20:47
I am just curious, besides the current CPU restrants, how impractical would it be to have real world algorithims generate the world. I mean, for instance, to have trees actually grow based on Location, Light Density, Ground Density, Water Density, Acidity of the Soil, Tempurature. And to have fire actually generated, instead of being a model or decal. To have real world interaction between the plr and objects, so you could literally light the place on fire and it would burn down as if it were actually real.

Besides the extream annoyance of comming up with such formulas, and the excessive CPU demand, what would the downside be. How impractical would it be?

Merranvo, The Cool One
Noob Justice League, Cause We Have More Fun
Support Merra XJ9, cause the name is cooler.
Grog Grueslayer
Valued Member
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th May 2005
Playing: Green Hell
Posted: 4th Feb 2006 21:02
If a computer model of exactly the way earths systems worked it would be impractical because we don't actually see when a tree is a centimeter bigger/higher.


Teh Go0rfmeister
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 4th Feb 2006 22:32
if you want that level of realism, why dont you just use the real world?

though i imagiine it'd actually be pretty simple, it all depends on how realistic you want the trees to LOOK as a pose to GROW.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 4th Feb 2006 23:22
In the real world everything has its own computer. Mostly the brain, but also the chemical elements, and interactions that develop through a set of immediate rules that are embedded within a macroscopic area. Even an atom probably breaks down into 50 subroutines.

Joh
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jul 2004
Location: Malaysia
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 00:17
There are already some scientific simlutors out there for what you are talking about, of course they're all accelerated for practical purposes.
So yeah if everything was accelerated, it would be cool but depending on usage. In some games it would be impractical, but hilarious. Imagine in FarCry, you run through the jungle into the base, then come back out and the jungle is totally overgrown!
A virtual bonsai sim/thing could be fun.

!
Oddmind
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jun 2004
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 00:48
I mean, I guess real life is basically like videogames, except better graphics... But what happens if I catch lag in RL!? IM DEAD! I mean, I even heard theres no respawn points in RL...

formerly KrazyJimmy
re faze
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Sep 2004
Location: The shores of hell.
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 00:51
not practical because you usually dont watch things happen they ususally happen and you notice them later.

Izzy545
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2004
Location:
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 06:57
Well, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is generating it's forests using real-world methods. It procedurally generates the forests when you first enter them. I think it could be very interesting to have whole worlds in games do this sort of thing.

Wiggett
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st May 2003
Location: Australia
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 14:46
Quote: "I mean, I even heard theres no respawn points in RL..."

yeah tele-fragging is a bugger IRL too.

as for real world stuff, I often wondered how hard it would be to make a completely photorealistic game, where you are in a corner shop say, and you can move around the room and look out the window at objects that you could not tell the difference between real life and teh game, as the imags are so spot on that your eyes can't tell the difference. Infact I drew up (on yet again, a napkin) how to actually make a VR room that this could be replicated in. I had basically devised that the walls would be completely covered in small ir beams, im not sure exactly but I assume they could be the same as the ones that beep when you walk into a small store. What they do is feed info to the main computer, each little one representing a game size pixel, so when you are in game, you can see a full render of the person or object in the room, that can get transfered to game data for the player model. The person would wear a vr headset, for two people int eh room, they could see each other's position in the vr simulator. The other part of the game would be to implement interactive objects, such as items and vr beings. The cameras would pick up movement of limbs etc and judge velocity, so you could punch a vr ninja in the face and the camera would judge the speed of the limb to say ok explode ninja's head. or you could pick up an item (chainsaw) that is completely vr, and it will follow your hand around, so you could chainsaw vr demons like in doom. Of course this is all theory, and processing size would be intense, and I'm prolly wrong about the whole ir sensors thing. But if I had the money to experiment, well heck we already have the games in arcades where you dodge the punches or play the japanese cop and dodge bullets. Maybe not so far off?

Syndicate remastered: Corporate persuasion through urban violence.
Robin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Feb 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 15:15
How many FPS does real life run at?

Robin

http://www.robinsgames.com | robin@robinsgames.com

w w w . r o b i n s g a m e s . c o m
David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 15:21
There's certain things in real life that can't even be described by maths. I attended a lecture about chaos last year, very good stuff. There's a pendulum problem.

Imagine a pendulum swinging side to side. Now imagine the pivot is moving up and down too, so the head traces out a sideways figure of 8. The path of the pendulum head can be traced quite comfortably with maths.

However, as you increase the amount the pivot is oscillating up and down by you hit a threshold and the movement is completely chaotic. You can't find a pattern at all. Interesting stuff.

Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 17:06
That can still be modelled with maths, just not as an explicit equation of time. There's a fairly simple differential equation for it.

That can then be 'solved' by a computer.

Anyway, it may well be able to be solved analytically, just nobody's invented the maths for it yet.

So I don't actually know how true this is:
Quote: " There's certain things in real life that can't even be described by maths."


More the case that maths can describe it, but the real world can't (á la quantum mechanics)

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 17:12
Quote: "More the case that maths can describe it, but the real world can't (� la quantum mechanics)"


Quantum mechanics just looks wrong because some things have been taken for granted, like the speed of light for example. The speed of light is wrong.

Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 17:15
You mean the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant is wrong?

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 17:30 Edited at: 5th Feb 2006 17:31
If light is the same as time then it is right, but if there is a time wave then it is wrong. Science always relates light to time, but sight is not a physical world, it is parrallel to what is happening, maybe with a slight delay. So if light is combined with time then it could travel faster than we can record, and therefore the speed that we record would be wrong, and therefore we would see a constant speed, because the speed is at the max of what we can record, but it would not be the actual speed.

Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 17:35
?

Don't really understand that. A 'time wave' is something you just made up right?

Quote: " If light is the same as time then it is right"


SOL being constant does not rely on this (nor would it imply it AFAIK). Science would relate Time/Space but not Time/Light or Light/Space.

Becky
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Jan 2006
Location:
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 18:51 Edited at: 5th Feb 2006 18:52
Quote: "I am just curious, besides the current CPU restrants, how impractical would it be to have real world algorithims generate the world."

One day science will figure out that the Douglas Adams was right, the meaning of life is a number - but it isn't 42, it's more likely to be the Fibonacci sequence. The whole universe and everything on it boils down to 1.652 or thereabouts... Is it maths running the world? Or is maths simply able to recreate it?

In either case the things you mention are all possible and many of them feature in games already.

Sid Meir's Alpha Centuri had flora growth and decline based on intelligent rules and yet was released several years ago. Fractal topography is actually very simple to produce, here's one of the gazzillion or so i've made over the years:

http://www.codersworkshop.com/viewshowcase.php?id=531

Effecting the world in realtime from that point in is simply a case of adding rules for it. Fractals are quite simple really, anyone can generate a random number - you just need to know what to do with that number, and all of the things you mention have been done before in games.

Here's one I made where you can burn down forests, set the flora density high and go on a rampage...

http://www.bansheestudios.com/Paradise%20Island.html

Making a world with "real world rules" is simply a case of conditionalising world generation based upon observed/known phenomenon. When I place a random tree in my fractal generation process I have rules that modulate the process, so no tree appears above the treeline or too close to another tree, hense it is fractal rather than random - because it has rules which define it's parameters.

If you want "real world algorythms" simple identify all the real world rules you want to incorporate into your game, then program them...
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 23:08
What I mean is much more complex, to literally calculate every action. Everything. As if RL. (Destruction, path of fire based on air density, flamibility of the soil/fuel...) Simple Algortithms are easy, I've done about 30 of those. The question is better asked as, how far can you go?

@David T, I personally believe that Chaos Theory thrives on what we don't know. If you were to create the perfect system, where nothing may interphere. And you create your own atoms with code (ie. Program), then you will know everything they will do (OKAY, you won't, programming produces unpredictable results [bugs]). If you have other people program other parts of the atom, you get results that you do not understand, but the other person does. Now we don't even have a 1% grasp on atomic structure, and structure is amplified by certain variables. Thus, unpredictable results.

Quote: "You mean the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant is wrong?"

The constant is wrong. Think of it like this, on the subatomic level, electrons meet some resistance between transphers in the valence orbitals, so by flipping a switch, even if both wires are the exact same length (And the length needs to be exact by 1 pico meter), one electron will arrive before the other.

Quantom Mechanics states that a wave takes every posible route before reaching it's destination. So in theory, Light is traveling faster then light... confusing. I prefer to think of something that makes more sense, a wave exists in all points of the universe at once. Basically the same thing, which brings up a question, what if the wave is only a ripple? What we are really producing is a upteenth dimention energy? As a plain can fill a point, and as a object can fill a plain, this 'wave' we are creating is of a dimention greater then our own, and it creates a 'ripple' though our own dimention... Of course this is assuming that the Quantum Mechanics theory is correct.

Merranvo, The Cool One
Noob Justice League, Cause We Have More Fun
Support Merra XJ9, cause the name is cooler.
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 5th Feb 2006 23:41
Sorry I might be missing something but I don't see where any of that shows that SOLIAV isn't constant.

I've read it a few times, and still can't see. Why mention electrons in a wire?

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 00:51
My main point is that when we measure the speed of light we could measure the particle or the wave. Light is supposed to be both, but for something to be two different things, it has to ACTUALLY be two different things.

A surfer on a surfboard is a particle.

The water is the wave.

The surfer is not the wave.

The water is not the surfer.

If you measure the speed of the surfer you get the modulation of the wave.

If the water increases speed too much then the surfer may be overtaken by the wave, and ride the next wave, he cannot ride all waves, of any speed.

So if you measure the speed of light you are not measuring the speed of its force, just its arrival at a certain point, and it may be that the device that is measuring the speed has some restrictions that it cannot even perceive the actual wave, as the wave is pushing a photon, and that would require some strange substance which I imagine to be simlar to pendulums swinging by perpetual motion.

This perpetual motion started the universe, and not a big bang.

This perpetual motion is also gravity.

Gravity is a wave therefore that pushes using pendulum motion.

I am right.

Pincho 1
Einstein 0
Hawkins 0
Rest of mankind 0



Oddmind
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jun 2004
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 03:44
Yea I just d/led this RL mod called Highschool, it blows!

formerly KrazyJimmy
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 04:00
Pincho, your theory assumes that the wave and particle of light are two separate things. Although this may be true, I would like to point out that such a concept would result in eventual energy loss, or the wave may even rebound. Given that current physics heeds the subatomic level interactions.

Gravity is a wave therefore that pushes using pendulum motion.
Okay, by this point I am getting very confused... in order to have a pendulum motion, you need to have a fixed point. This means that your gravity wave is created by the motion of another mass-energy-time object. Also, perpetual motion can only be achieved in a forceless environment, as pendulum motion requires a force, you can not have perpetual motion.

As an explanation, when they say a light wave exists as both energy and mass, it is sort of a fluctuation more as. Once you understand that mass is made up of energy, (so time is made from mass! :p) the idea is easier to understand.


Chris K, please don't use uncommon acronyms. I did state that the first paragraph disproves the validity of the numerical constant. The second paragraph deals with theory that has the potential to disprove the validity of there being an actual speed of light, more as saying that what we measure may be influenced by other factors, perhaps, even our own measurments.

Merranvo, The Cool One
Noob Justice League, Cause We Have More Fun
Support Merra XJ9, cause the name is cooler.
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 10:54
Quote: "Okay, by this point I am getting very confused... in order to have a pendulum motion, you need to have a fixed point. This means that your gravity wave is created by the motion of another mass-energy-time object. Also, perpetual motion can only be achieved in a forceless environment, as pendulum motion requires a force, you can not have perpetual motion."


The black is the mass object. The string or whatever you want to call it. So small, so tightly compact, yet unobstructive, apart from its minor forces. The pendulum motion is a sort of magnetic catch 22. There is a particle next to another, next to another forever. The particle to the left cannot touch the particle on the right without releasing energy, and the energy pushes the particle away, which then hits the particle on the left, releasing energy. It starts off random, but will soon develop into a pattern. I might make a computer model of it one day. At some point there will be a large release of energy as two opposite sides of a particle are hit from many other particles like a train. This will knock the particle in the opposite direction to the weakest side, and this particle will be free of the wave. Now it is riding the wave, and has become a photon, maybe the first ever photon. Other collisions create atoms, and other particles, as bunches of BLACK stuff form different patterns. What you end up with is a universe of huge planets. They are the result of random collisions creating hotspots of matter. All this can be modelled in a computer, and you don't need much more than a pendulum motion, and a release of energy. It's like those metal balls on a string that bang together. You swing 1 ball, and all the other balls move away, but then come back again. You swing 2 balls, and you get a fatter wave, a larger object is moving away, 2 balls would be more visible in a macroscopic universe, 2 pixels. Now you get 2 balls from one side, and 2 balls from the other side, and collide them. Now the balls break free from their linear pattern. They swap places, and tangle up the string. This creates molecules, because the patterns are chaotic in a linear environment.

As for resistance for a photon, well it is riding the wave, it is above most of the atoms, and molecules. It stops at a wall not because it hits the atoms, but because it hits the energy between them.

Dave J
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2003
Location: Secret Military Pub, Down Under
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 12:22
Quote: "My main point is that when we measure the speed of light we could measure the particle or the wave. Light is supposed to be both, but for something to be two different things, it has to ACTUALLY be two different things."


Just want to point out that light is not a wave or a particle, it's a photon, which is neither one nor the other but exhibits properties of both. Now to emphasise that point:

-Light is not a wave.
-Light is not a particle.
-Light is a photon.
-A photon contains both wave-like and particle-like properties.


"Computers are useless, they can only give you answers."
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 14:04
Quote: "The constant is wrong. Think of it like this, on the subatomic level, electrons meet some resistance between transphers in the valence orbitals, so by flipping a switch, even if both wires are the exact same length (And the length needs to be exact by 1 pico meter), one electron will arrive before the other."


This shows that the speed of light in a vacuum isn't constant? It seems fairly devoid of um... light. I don't mean to be rude it's just that isn't an argument it's just.... I don't know it just mentions stuff. What wire? What switch? Please elaborate.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 14:22 Edited at: 6th Feb 2006 14:28
Quote: "-Light is not a wave.
-Light is not a particle.
-Light is a photon.
-A photon contains both wave-like and particle-like properties."


That is an explenation of light taken from the mouths of people who have been confused by a set of experimental outcomes. like....

"Huh? how can a photon interfere with itself?"
"Huh? how does a photon hit the photosensitive paper in a wave pattern?"

"Ahhh!!! light has particle properties, and wave properties!!! Eureka!!!"

These people need to see the light!!!

A surfer on a surf board hitting a wall would produce the same pattern. High and low blood stains in a wave pattern.

So light is likely to be riding a wave. Two related experimants with the same outcome. A surfer on a surf board, a photon on a wave. Fractal nature.

Everything in the universe can be explained by particles getting smaller, and smaller, always particles, and nothing strange. Well, apart from the energy.

Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 18:33
"Surfer on a wave" doesn't explain diffraction through a slit.

Are there meant to be an infinite number of "surfers" on each bit of the wave that then spread out and hit the wall in different places?

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

- Light is wave-like because it gets diffracted and refracted.
- Light is particle-like because it travels through a vacuum and arrives in discrete quanta.

End of.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 20:53
You haven't really merged the particle/wave connection, you have simply described them as individual things even though they are describing just 1 thing.

There are occasional surfers on surf boards hitting a wall. They leave blood spills in different places that will eventually draw a wave pattern. Same as light does if you do the same thing with photosensitive paper.

Defraction describes the wave, but is the wave light or is it the path that light is walking on?

CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 21:00 Edited at: 7th Feb 2006 01:23
this discussion is crazy.
carry on .

XUpdate - Effortless Automatic file updating for your distributed Games and Apps
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 21:22
Chris K,
In plain and simple terms, the first paragraph says the the speed of light is not equal to the given constant, because of problems in measurement.

The second paragraph deals with the theory to disprove the actual "speed of light" syndrom. Saying that the speed we record is created by external factors.

Pincho, I like! In a way, you remind me of myself...
Everything you say will be clearer with a diagram.

I assume that you are noting that your particle is charged, no? The reason for this is because for any motion of a solid based object to occur you will need a transpher of energy in mechanical form.

Also, you did fail to understand that any particle will cause a loss in energy due to coversion to mechanical energy. So, for a charged particle to ride a electromagnetic wave, it will have to be nearly massless.


Theorys are interesting, hope to hear more. (Anyone find it funny that this thread turned into a theory disscussion?)

Merranvo, The Cool One
Noob Justice League, Cause We Have More Fun
Support Merra XJ9, cause the name is cooler.
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 21:57 Edited at: 6th Feb 2006 22:00
Pictures??? This......



Attachments

Login to view attachments
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 22:36
*smashes head against wall, and leaves*

Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 6th Feb 2006 23:09
It'd be very very difficult to simulate such a thing as earth completely. Ever seen Nasa's nuclear simulation? It simulates all the physics of an actual nuclear blast. Wind, air density, surrounding objects and ground are all factors. The math is simply mind-boggling to me. crazy nasa scientists.


Deadly Night Assassins
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 7th Feb 2006 00:58
Phaelax, I agree, but the issue is mainly, I get tired of seeing gay effects. Fire can be rendered using algorithmic data to a point which it's reality is uncertain. You can have such cool games if they had RL in them. It also expands the options, making replay enourmus.

Pincho, you mentioned DBP calculations...

Chris K we must accept all theorys as fact until we have ample evidence to disprove them. And even if the evidence points against a theory, we must examine the evidence to make sure that it is valid and not baised on another theory which may or may not be disproven.

Merranvo, The Cool One
Noob Justice League, Cause We Have More Fun
Support Merra XJ9, cause the name is cooler.
Grog Grueslayer
Valued Member
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th May 2005
Playing: Green Hell
Posted: 7th Feb 2006 01:13
Quote: "It'd be very very difficult to simulate such a thing as earth completely. Ever seen Nasa's nuclear simulation? It simulates all the physics of an actual nuclear blast. Wind, air density, surrounding objects and ground are all factors. The math is simply mind-boggling to me. crazy nasa scientists."


Yeah and that's a 52-teraflop supercomputer... i'd hate to say it... but Darkbasic can't handle an entire world simulation.


Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Feb 2006 01:36
Quote: "Pincho, you mentioned DBP calculations..."


More of a beginning of the universe simulator really...DB Classic.

Probably manage 5000 particles at a decent speed. Circles for planets, no Y plane so that you can see through the soup.

Just an tiny expenditure of energy running the whole thing.

Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 7th Feb 2006 03:00
Quote: "Chris K we must accept all theorys as fact until we have ample evidence to disprove them"

My theory is that there are invisible cyclopes living on the moon. Accept that.

Tempest - P2P UDP Multiplayer Plugin - 70%
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 7th Feb 2006 03:15
Ben, that would explain why we didn't find life. Not that we were looking for it... how do they stay invisible? (yes, I know it was a sarcastic remark)

Merranvo, The Cool One
Noob Justice League, Cause We Have More Fun
Support Merra XJ9, cause the name is cooler.
Undercover Steve
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, Little Canada(Washington)
Posted: 7th Feb 2006 03:18
They use universal camera interfaces.

Basically they are covered in plasma screen tvs, and the screens have nano camera's, that take pictures of everything around them, and put them on the screen, making it look real.

I have been re assigned. New name, new mission. Star Fleet - 5%
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 7th Feb 2006 03:19 Edited at: 7th Feb 2006 03:19
Quote: "how do they stay invisible?"

Why do you leave it to me to come up with all the highly logical theories?

[Edit] What Undercover Steve said.

Tempest - P2P UDP Multiplayer Plugin - 70%
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 7th Feb 2006 03:29
Hmm Interesting theory... but wouldn't they glow?

How do you know that these invisible cyclopes didn't come to earth... and mabey one is behind you... salivating... waiting... for... NOW!!!

More reasonably, how do we know that the government doesn't have inivisitech? Perhaps they are all spying on us... and we wouldn't know it.

Merranvo, The Cool One
Noob Justice League, Cause We Have More Fun
Support Merra XJ9, cause the name is cooler.
Undercover Steve
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, Little Canada(Washington)
Posted: 7th Feb 2006 03:33
Because we would need practicaly a 700 pack of duracell batteries for the plasma to run for 1 minute. But didnt you know? Aliens have cold fusion

I have been re assigned. New name, new mission. Star Fleet - 5%
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 7th Feb 2006 03:44
Quote: "How do you know that these invisible cyclopes didn't come to earth"

Well that's just it, we haven't got evidence that they didn't, so they must have done.

Tempest - P2P UDP Multiplayer Plugin - 70%
Dave J
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2003
Location: Secret Military Pub, Down Under
Posted: 7th Feb 2006 07:51
Quote: "A surfer on a surf board hitting a wall would produce the same pattern. High and low blood stains in a wave pattern.

So light is likely to be riding a wave. Two related experimants with the same outcome. A surfer on a surf board, a photon on a wave. Fractal nature."


You're conveniently ignoring the fact where light does not behave like a wave (or a particle) all the time. If light were riding a wave, the wave would be continuous, and subsequently, if the intensity of light were increased (making it brighter), there would be more 'surfers', right? Unfortunately, the Photoelectric effect disproves this without a doubt. The basic idea is that when a photocathode is illuminated by light, it will emit electrons completing a basic electrical circuit (more on this, later).

We already know that colour affects the wavelength/frequency of light, causing different diffraction patterns in the double slit experiment (which you haven't explained either, if light were riding on a wave, why would the colour of light affect the size of the wave or how frequent the wave occured - not to mention the speed of the wave?! There is a direct relationship already). In the photoelectric effect, the wavelength determines whether or not electrons are emitted from the photocathode or not, this makes no sense in your theory because the surfers would still arrive at the photocathode, no matter what the wavelength. Furthermore, the intensity of the light does not affect the Kinetic Energy of the photoelectrons emitted, surely more 'surfers' would ensure more energy?

But feel free to keep claiming that Einstein's theory (the one that earned him the 1921 Nobel prize, mind you) is wrong. I'm sure sooner or later, someone will agree with your idea (despite it holding absolutely no scientific evidence).


"Computers are useless, they can only give you answers."
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Feb 2006 09:40 Edited at: 7th Feb 2006 09:47
Quote: "(despite it holding absolutely no scientific evidence).
"


There is far more evidence for my idea than any other about light.

Well the wave/colour part is easy to explain. The wave can be slowed down, and speeded up same as a surfer can ride fast water slow water. The wave passes between molecules, and the tighter the gap is, the more squashed it becomes, and that obviously changes the frequency of the wave. Anything that light is doing as a wave is to do with the actual wave, I have not taken the wave away so there is no change there.

Energy. There is still a wave. It can change frequency. You can put more surfers on if you want. They would have to collide to create energy, they are unlikely to collide with each other on different peaks of the wave, but occasionally they will, but remember that the photons are travelling above the atoms, so do not collide with atoms. They collide with the gap between atoms, which is a tight space, with an energy barrier.

Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 7th Feb 2006 19:36
Quote: "Chris K we must accept all theorys as fact until we have ample evidence to disprove them"


Worst. Philopsophy. EVER.

Quote: "There is far more evidence for my idea than any other about light."


*blinks*

I'm sorry, I missed the thousands of pages of rigorous mathmatical analysis and decades of strenuous research by the planet's greatest scientists.

I mean come on. COME ON. "Far more evidence"?!? Are you literally just trying to wind me up?

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Feb 2006 19:53 Edited at: 7th Feb 2006 19:58
Quote: "I'm sorry, I missed the thousands of pages of rigorous mathmatical analysis and decades of strenuous research by the planet's greatest scientists.

I mean come on. COME ON. "Far more evidence"?!? Are you literally just trying to wind me up?"


All that maths points at my idea too. So I have all that maths plus my more detailed explenations of why that maths actually works, plus I get rid of strange behaviour, and make all that strangeness less strange.

Anyway, some of the maths was bodged to make it work.

Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 7th Feb 2006 20:09
Quote: "All that maths points at my idea too"


Bollocks!!! Why say that?! Why why why??? It's just absolutely and completely untrue! Most of the equations explicitly state that light is a wave!

But anyway, I'll let it pass because you'd NEVER accept otherwise.

-----------

OK, I'll try and keep this simple. I believe these are the two fundemental flaws with your idea:

- A surfer can ride a wave because gravity is constantly pulling them down the slope of the water. For a particle to travel on a wave like this there must be a similiar force. What is it in your case?
- If there is a particle that is just riding a wave, why can't the particle exist at rest? Why can't the surfer just stop riding the wave?

As far as I understand, what you think is that light is a sub atomic particle, that essentially gets pushed along by a completely separate wave that most certainly isn't light.

Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 02:36
Chris K, it is a great phiolsophie, it keeps your mind open to things that may be, and stuff... okay... I don't know what to say about pinchos idea...

What if Einstien was wrong? YEAH! Einstien was wrong so Pincho can be right! And we do have evidence of him being wrong in some fields, (Okay, in fields that were not his own theorys) but he was still wrong. So Einstien is wrong so Pincho can be right!

Merranvo, The Cool One
Noob Justice League, Cause We Have More Fun
Support Merra XJ9, cause the name is cooler.
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 8th Feb 2006 02:47
Quote: "Bollocks!!! Why say that?! Why why why??? It's just absolutely and completely untrue! Most of the equations explicitly state that light is a wave!"

God, you really need a life don't you.

Tempest - P2P UDP Multiplayer Plugin - 70%

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-16 16:53:59
Your offset time is: 2024-11-16 16:53:59