This says all the OP needs to read....

This is the EvE canon regarding his question.....

If he doesn't like the EvE canon, it's time he move on to a more serious game with a much more believable fiction.. like WoW *sarc off*

In a nutshell, the gravity wells of the warp drives themselves that enable faster than light travel within systems are what cause the various physics anomalies noticed in the game.

This probably includes the limited distance of ordnance and the beams of energy weapons as well.... yes a big penalty for the ability of travel that is much faster than the normal speed of light.. but hey ... without these warp engines it would take 3 or more years to travel from one side of a system to the other. Fair trade in my opinion, I would hate EvE if it took me a year just to get from my agent to a mission destination.

Like for example if there was more than one Jita and you and your friend could both be at the 4-4 undock without being able to see each other because you're in different Jitas.

It should be over 9000!

(But seriously, laws of physics are much more older than that, people just could not comprehend them until lately).

I don't think the OP thought out this whole 'realistic physics' thing, in that A) he got the time dilation backward. And B) he forgot the fact that you would be turned into paste and most likely your ship heavily damaged or destroyed every time you used a MWD or went to warp, or accelerated at all in some of the faster ships, due to inertia. I personally don't want to play a game where I spend half the time blacked out from the g-forces of accelerating in space or dead from being pulverized.

I just can't take any post seriously when it speaks of Einstein's Relativity and faster-than-light travel in the same sentence.

'Assuming Einstein's Relativity is correct, FTL travel is impossible'.

Sorry. You are not allowed to take my post seriously now, so please point out the contradiction :)

Hi,


EVE would be far too complicated if it simulated true relativistic and newtonian physics, and that would certainly be impossible to manage in a way that lets the game run as many simultaneous connections as it does.

!

A newtonian Engine is fairly simple look what Frontier: Elite didin the mid90's.... playability though is another matter becausewhat you get is space joust.

Pretty sure any qualified scientist knows that everything is held together by God.

Does anyone else find it extremely odd that this game uses laws of physics that are over 100 years old? There was this guy called Einstein, devs, not sure if you've heard of him? His work in physics was kind of a big deal, and any game that involves faster-than-light travel should take into account the causal paradoxes that would result from such technological possibilities; I should also be able to train skills faster than other people by constantly warping from one system to another (or rather, faster from the perspective of someone who is stationary).

Anyways, I just wanted to throw that out there. This really is a big issue to me; it would be like if Call of Duty had no gravity because "welp, too hard to model" and everyone just sort of floated around. You can't ignore the fundamental nature of reality and expect to present your game as internally consistent...

I just find it hilarious that people argue over what kind of physics can be called "realistic" when were using (supposedly) ~10,000 years more advanced tech, in a part of the universe incredibly far from our own.

maybe the fact that there are wormholes literally saturating the New Eden star cluster AND space is constantly being strained and bended with warp drives, is tearing physical space apart. and thats why we have submarine physics, we killed reality,



but in all honesty, 400 years ago we refined our view of physics, 300 years ago we redefined our understanding of the whole universe, a mere 70 years ago we proved we know almost NOTHING about how the universe works.

a mere 1 day ago we continue to prove there is an ever growing ocean of knowledge about the mechanics of our universe we understand increasingly little about, much of this knowledge contradicting and making obsolete many theories we held as universal truths.

were changing our views of the universe EVERY DAY, whos to say that one day we wont master energy-matter conversion, and use implosion bombs designed to turn ambient energy in a solar system into a star, or solar energy from a star into a bal of rock to teraform into a planet.

facce it, science may be the method of defining our universes mechanics. but SCIENCE is all about proving to everyone they dont know crap about ****.

i dare you all to live another 100 years and tell me that the way we see the universe now isnt "silly" or "primitive".


now time for bed before i pass out.

Of course, the problem we have is reading the entangled pair without destroying it and of course, easily inducing a change in the quantum state.

People might have to consider that they have absolutely no idea about the physics involved in every part of the universe.

; I should also be able to train skills faster than other people by constantly warping from one system to another (or rather, faster from the perspective of someone who is stationary).

But... weren't those all single player games? I wonder how they'd perform with 2000 active people on the same node.

Did a search for Macro observation of a quantum event and came up with this little gem.

Quantum effect spotted in a visible object

"Dead and alive, at once

In this way the researchers created a superposition state of the resonator where they simultaneously had an excitation in the resonator and no excitation in the resonator, such that when they measured it, the resonator has to "choose" which state it is in. "This is analogous to Schr+¦dinger's cat being dead and alive at the same time," says Cleland.



Besides the fact that if anyone on a physics forum uses the word "choose" in line with a universal process (thus suggesting thought, will or god) they will get torn apart by self important atheist nerds, what exactly does "where they simultaneously had an excitation in the resonator and no excitation in the resonator" mean?



Were they, or were they not, detecting excitation in their sensor at any given unit of time? Also, are there any other possible explanations for the effect that they are claiming to observe? I would like to know how precisely a sensor can "detect a single photon of heat" and "not detect a single photon of heat" at the same exact time? That is like saying a semi-conductor in a computer was both in a state of 1 and 0 at the same time.


The more I learn about how "scientists" go about things, the more I realize how little we collectively know about the universe as a species.

A semiconductor can be both 1 and 0 at the same time. Truth doesn't require anyone to understand it to be true.

It's not really 1 or 0 in your computer, but low voltage and high voltage. And for each there are a range of voltages that work.

The only requirement of logic is that something not be both A and not A at the same time. You can be two opposite things without a problem. But even that only applies to formal logic and not physics.

For all that scientists don't know, we do know a whole lot and scientists tend to know massive amounts more on their topic than the layman. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.

For all that scientists don't know, we do know a whole lot and scientists tend to know massive amounts more on their topic than the layman. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.

Or maybe, Mr. (yet another science religion fanboi) a material in which there is zero electrical resistance and perfect diamagnetism, has some properties that are hard to time properly and a bit beyond ordinary conventional thinking. So i counter you with "just because it appears to fit your theory at the time, it does not mean that it is actually the proof that you were looking for."


P.S.

An object cycling between 1 and 0 fast enough, might appear to be in a state of 1 and 0 at the same time. Do you disagree?




Your reeducation can begin with something simple. Use your assumed academic skill and check out the new findings that are quickly building up and threatening to blow the current theory of human evolution right out of the water. Go ahead. Take a look. You might learn you sometin.

Calling me a fanboi doesn't really counter my argument.

I have logically induced the effectiveness of the scientific method from it's incredible track record. Few other things can report a similar track record.

The wonderful thing about science is that it is designed to self-correct. If a theory explaining a set of facts is challenged by new facts, then the theory is adjusted.

Very rarely are theories completely thrown out that have been around for awhile. Even when they are adjusted heavily we usually just find the old theory held for some specific criteria (e.g. Newtonian physics and non-relativistic speeds).

Small adjustments do happen,