Another one of these threads. Hows your first year of school going?

Fine, thank you. I'm taking Physics 101 and am already 3/4th of the way through the syllabus, so I think I'm more than qualified to comment on this.

Does anyone else find it extremely odd that this game uses laws of physics that are over 100 years old? ...

This really is a big issue to me; it would be like if Call of Duty had no gravity ... You can't ignore the fundamental nature of reality and expect to present your game as internally consistent...

Fine, thank you. I'm taking Physics 101 and am already 3/4th of the way through the syllabus, so I think I'm more than qualified to comment on this.

Imagine if the game was based on *gasp* magic how ridiculous it would be. I support the OP's initiative of aligning game physics and reality but he should start with games that are glaringly oblivious to reality and use such magic-basic shenanigans. OP, it is your moral duty to the world to register a WoW account and place this question on their forums.

Hi,

The Game physics are based on a fluidic model; which whilst not being a model of our universe, is much more intuitive to people who live around a planet and drive cars.

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.

Now, I would like to remind people to post constructively, please!

Now, I would like to remind people to post constructively, please!

I think she is calling us all stupid...

I can find little counter evidence.

New Healer Spells.

* Tourniquet
* Leeches
* Hacksaw
* Opium
* Pray to Correct God
* Leeches Type 2

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...

Hi,

The Game physics are based on a fluidic model; which whilst not being a model of our universe, is much more intuitive to people who live around a planet and drive cars.

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.

Now, I would like to remind people to post constructively, please!

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).

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...

tl;dr: "new eden is an ocean"

The Game physics are based on a fluidic model; which whilst not being a model of our universe, is much more intuitive to people who live around a planet and drive cars.

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.

Did you (OP) actually expect them to model real time dilation when one player moves faster than light?

Ships in EVE don't approach relativistic speeds, the fastest you can go is 10^3 m/s -ish.

The warp drive (as should really be evident from it's name) contracts space so the distance between A (your ship) and B (point ahead of your ship) much shortert, allowing you to traverse it at sublight speeds within the bubble.

Your ship never goes absolutely superluminal within the bubble, the warp drive is lets you circumvent the rules not break them.

EVE physics is not realistic as everybody else has already said. It's a shame the "fluid" nonsense doesn't make any sense either.

The most annoying thing to me is how wrecks stop moving when you kill something that was moving. The max range on guns is also fairly ridiculous.

... and Species 8472.



Says you. Do we look like DUST bunnies?



Right., it can't be done.

(Oh and the last pic is of a ship going directly from space into planetary atmosphere. Indy game, cost less to make that what CCP spends on pizza in a year.)

so if all i do is warp around i can be in a titan in a week? did i do that right?

Let us know how you plan on simulating how a ship's mass, length, and time dilation become imaginary at speeds above c.

My pretend spaceship flies faster than your pretend spaceship because of the big orange and red "go faster" flames painted on the hull ?

so if all i do is warp around i can be in a titan in a week? did i do that right?

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...

Warp drives don't cause you to get anywhere near the local light speed, they create a field (of totally BS space magic) that decreases the mass of the surrounding space (a 'depleted vacuum') resulting in a large negative density for the region around the ship (the 'warp tunnel'), thus raising light speed and allowing speeds of multiple AU/s without even approaching the local light speed.

The downside to to these drives is that when in standby mode (they cannot be turned off safely) the create a force akin to friction that drags the ship into a zero velocity relative to the local gravity well (usually the local star)

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...

you are asking for realism on a game where you can viciously murder someone with no provocation, get killed by the cops and do it all over again in 15 minutes, on the same spot, sometimes with the very same cops that responded to your first crime still standing there.

or how about the fact that if we add up the mass of all the items contained within jita 4-4, and expect realism, the station should collapse on itself and become a black hole?

maybe even more hilarious is the fact that an object of a couple hounded million tonnes can accelerate to speeds of upwards to 200m/s , collide with another object of the same characteristics, same speed but opposing vector and not having it all end in a 200 megaton explosion.

To be fair, it would be much easier to balance:

For all the above: -100 HP per application.

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...

And while school is a bit hazy after all these years, I don't remember Einstein ever publishing anything on the effects of "Faster than light travel"....

... and Species 8472.



Says you. Do we look like DUST bunnies?



Right., it can't be done.

(Oh and the last pic is of a ship going directly from space into planetary atmosphere. Indy game, cost less to make that what CCP spends on pizza in a year.)

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...

how are YOU to decide what is "BS space magic"? do you know how all physics work beyond what we consider the theoretical laws?
no?

then quit bashing on my immersion since you cant prove 100% it could never happen in real life with comparable technology.

yes i mad for no reason.

I'll just leave this here.

Current "BS Space Magic" that NASA is working on.

We know a fair amount more about how "warp bubbles" work than you might think.

Sounds great on paper, lets hope they don't send the planet off on a little trip......

If i was a betting man I'd say you thought the LHC would create a black hole...

nah mate

it was newton came up with relativity

Warp drives don't cause you to get anywhere near the local light speed, they create a field (of totally BS space magic) that decreases the mass of the surrounding space (a 'depleted vacuum') resulting in a large negative density for the region around the ship (the 'warp tunnel'), thus raising light speed and allowing speeds of multiple AU/s without even approaching the local light speed.

The downside to to these drives is that when in standby mode (they cannot be turned off safely) the create a force akin to friction that drags the ship into a zero velocity relative to the local gravity well (usually the local star)

GǪand anyway, I prefer the Futurama solution: since you can't go faster than the speed of light, increase the speed of light.

That's not quite as insane as it sounds; One of the theories of how the universe has expanded so far, in the time that we think its been around could indicate that the speed of light was actually faster in the early stages of the universe.

Science, capsuleers!

True, watched a special on Discovery Channel with that famous Asian physicist guy (sorry forgot his name) and he said that the big bang would've started as an infintesimally small point and expanded to the size of our solar system in a matter of millionths of a second...... that is way faster than the speed of light.... so eithor he is right or Einstein was right or they are both in a way right and that the speed of light itself can be changed....

Something to fry your noodles with.....

True, watched a special on Discovery Channel with that famous Asian physicist guy (sorry forgot his name) and he said that the big bang would've started as an infintesimally small point and expanded to the size of our solar system in a matter of millionths of a second...... that is way faster than the speed of light.... so eithor he is right or Einstein was right or they are both in a way right and that the speed of light itself can be changed....

Something to fry your noodles with.....

I'm just happy we're not warping straight through the middle of planets any more.

tWas the best expansion ever!

That's not quite as insane as it sounds; One of the theories of how the universe has expanded so far, in the time that we think its been around could indicate that the speed of light was actually faster in the early stages of the universe.

Science, capsuleers!

Surely one of the biggest atrocities against relativistic physics in this game is the instant communication.

I can be in a station 10AU (80 light minutes) from an asteroid belt and get instant intel from the belt that there's three untanked Hulks there from a scout and assemble a fleet to obliterate them well before the message should have even travelled 1AU.

Of course this is needed for the game to be entertaining.

(like Schroedingers cat don't get me started)

is actually almost possible now.

Would it be safe to say that this is both a very and not very frustrating issue for you?

...I see they teach you ISDs about as much physics as the physics programmers :)

The very fact that we can currently make these experiments and make these observations, means that it's possible in a physical sense, rather then any kind on-paper theory here.

I am not suggesting that we will all have fluid routers in the next few years.

We can perform the experiments, but even in principal you can't use entanglement to transfer information. Hence why I took issue with "possible in the near future". As far as we know, it won't be possible ever :(

Oh well, as has been rightly pointed out EVE doesn't have to be realistic as long as it's fun.

But, regarding the other point - I know I'm being a pedant, but it depends what you define as being information?
After-all, the experiments prove that we know the state of one of the pairs ... and if we can't actually extract the specific (although i'd bet we'd just be saying that any of one rotation is 1, and any of the other is 0) we have the information that the pair was changed by effecting the first.

If we didn't know that, we wouldn't know that the experiments work!

The reason for this: Measure one particle's state and you gain some information, but until you know what the state of the other particle was measured to be your information is useless. The only way to find out what the state of the other particle was is to have the information about its state transmitted classically.. slower than light.

To follow this idea them, what would stop them from using some kind of message pattern ?

If you think about TCP/IP packets, a header describes the message, but it's done in situ and, crucially, its done at the same speed as the packet.

In a quantum entangled system, perhaps you'd send a message specific to your pair that could be recognised in its own state or inverted; You'd then follow with a checksum that proves the polarity of the opposite pair, so if you get 01010101 you know that the other one is in a clockwise state, and 10101010 is anti-clockwise.

Holy ... did we just invent TCP/QP ? (Quantum protocol)

... and Species 8472.



Says you. Do we look like DUST bunnies?



Right., it can't be done.

(Oh and the last pic is of a ship going directly from space into planetary atmosphere. Indy game, cost less to make that what CCP spends on pizza in a year.)

This would work if at the transmitting end you could choose the state of your entangled particle to be 1 or 0, but the problem is you can't do that. When an entangled state is created the spin of the particle is random, which means the other member of the entangled pair also has random spin -- so no fancy checksumming or parity system will work. The only decision you get to make is when to measure the state (and whether or not you measured it is not something the other person can determine without first sending their results for comparison).

Here's a math analogy: Think of two people sitting in different galaxies, both with random number generators with the same seed. One of the two generators has a random pattern ("the message") XORed with its output. Both people can both generate random numbers whenever they want, but can't examine the state of the generator or otherwise communicate. Is it possible for one of the two people to determine the message? Clearly it's not possible unless you can compare the output of the two generators -- which means sending the output of one of them slower than light, and this defeats the whole purpose of your messaging system.

Does anyone else find it extremely odd that this game uses laws of physics...

You're right -- I should be more specific (I'm a massive pedant too!). Clearly QUANTUM information is transferred between the pair, but crucially CAUSAL classical information is never transferred faster than the speed of light.

The reason for this: Measure one particle's state and you gain some information, but until you know what the state of the other particle was measured to be your information is useless. The only way to find out what the state of the other particle was is to have the information about its state transmitted classically.. slower than light.

The tl;dr is as before, entanglement can't be used to send useful (causal) information faster than the speed of light (as far as our current understand goes).

nah mate

it was newton came up with relativity

He is a goon we know they aren't very intelligent.

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).

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

Right., it can't be done.

(Oh and the last pic is of a ship going directly from space into planetary atmosphere. Indy game, cost less to make that what CCP spends on pizza in a year.)

Surely one of the biggest atrocities against relativistic physics in this game is the instant communication.

I can be in a station 10AU (80 light minutes) from an asteroid belt and get instant intel from the belt that there's three untanked Hulks there from a scout and assemble a fleet to obliterate them well before the message should have even travelled 1AU.

Weapons ranges are 250km at most usually much less including light speed lasers.
.

So no, weapon ranges are not 250km at most, TARGETING ranges caps out at 249km.

Just a guess here.... but do 50,000 plus people play Evochron Mercenary at the same time on ONE SERVER?

I believe the record number of people in one 200km chunk of space is around 2000, actually.

EvE is a series of interconnected instances. A very impressive method, mind you, but it's still very, very instanced.

"Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs" - Henry Ford

wait you're agreeing with a troll reply and you think newton came up with relativity

'lol'

He was a clever dude and he did

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 know what you're getting at and all but that isn't instancing. EVE doesn't have instancing the way other MMOs do, not even close.

It's still lame. I want to equip cruise missiles with warp drives and shoot them across the system.

Inter-Planetary Ballistic Missiles. Someone links a target lock and you fire from anywhere in the system.
Inter-System Ballistic Missiles with Jump Drives, they don't even need a launcher, the Size of an Armageddon.

Terribly unbalanced though...

Wait what?

Also space is a liquid.

It's true, I read that Newtonian Relativity can be summed up in the pithy statement: "The laws of physics (mechanics) are the same for any observer moving at constant speed."

Quite profound :)

Does anyone else find it extremely odd that this game uses laws of physics that are over 100 years old?

Perhaps by "over 100" you actually mean "over 400".

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,

See. I never said evolution is wrong. I said new evidence is piling up that is threatening to blow the theory of human evolution out of the water. There is a mountain of evidence piling up, but the academic community is ignoring it. Use your little fingers, explore google, and see why human beings are probably far older of a species then you were taught was possible in high school.

It's hard to take someone seriously when their main source of evidence / main argument is "google it."

It's not. Feel free to ask, but I would hate to further derail the thread with a essay. And on the contrary, maybe you are just lazy and academically challenged?

Maybe I am just too lazy and academically challenged to... ask you a question?

I suppose it's theoretically possible. Some people have trouble even finding the right question to ask. Have you asked one yet?

It's not. Feel free to ask, but I would hate to further derail the thread with a essay. And on the contrary, maybe you are just lazy and academically challenged?

Not even close to pro-level debate team tactics bra. Keep practicing.




Quintessen, got pretty quite though. Oh well...

Please don't deride scientists and science because you don't understand it while dismissing the large quantity of education that it requires to achieve such an understanding about some limited part of the universe.

My understanding of it is more then adequate. I know just enough to realize that I, and we as a race, know just short of jack. Believe what you want, the rest of the world is with you. That is why I refer to it as "the science religion".


As for a blog, no thanks. I'll write a book.

Compared to what's out there, we know very little, but compared to nothing we know very much. And science isn't a religion regardless of what you think. For one, science doesn't care what you believe... just like truth.

But if you think science is bunk and it doesn't know very much, how about you give up everything science has given you? Long life, good nutrition, the Internet, computers, EVE, cell phones, telephones period, cars, trucks, trains, planes, vaccines, antibiotics, surgery, glasses, contacts, mass production, cheap textile goods, explosives, lasers, printers, modern construction, electricity, electronics, the light bulb, fire extinguishers, recorded music, recorded video, movies, sound cards, and on and on and on.

The entire world relies upon the successes of science. You can claim we don't know anything, but we know how to make all that stuff and much more. You can't deride science while consuming its riches and not be considered a hypocrite.

I never said that we don't know how to make stuff work. A scan disk memory card runs on quantum tunneling. We can build them even though we have no idea how quantum tunneling works.


We know how gravity accelerates objects and how far it can propagate through space. We can send probes beyond our solar system, but we have no idea what gravity is.

Magnets?

Inertia is a property of matter. We can make cars go and make them stop, but be damned if we know what gives matter inertia, mass and momentum.



You as a human monkey, exhibits great skill in observing phenomena and repeating it for the sake of profit margins. Ya know, things like computers, trains, cheap textiles and EVE. All of which are designed, mass produced and improved upon to make the builders wealthy, not to advance the species. That is merely a side effect. You have alternatively proven yourself to be lacking in the "actual understanding" department however. The two things are entirely separate ideas--the ability to manufacture and recreate VS actual understanding of that thing.

So yes, you can build scan disks based on quantum tunneling. You can use gravity to probe Jupiter. You can understand inertia enough to build fighter jets. You can do all of these things without ever having a clue about what they actually are, what makes them what they are and how they came into being.



You have just been enlightened. No thanks needed.

Thread has died, derailed and fallen is a cesspool, why is it still open?

Still waiting.

Not an in-depth video, but it gets the idea across:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIg1Vh7uPyw

And here we have the universal failing of your science faith. If that field is composed of Higgs Bosons as they claim, and that is some how similar to how molecules and how they are arranged in water then 1. what are higgs bosons made out of 2. what is in between them and 3. what is it that makes them interact with one another?


You see, if they actually do prove conclusively that this field exists and these particle exists, then you will need to create new and even smaller fields and particles to explain the interactions of the individual Higgs Bosons. Like a kaleidoscope without end, you will be forced to chase your tail into infinite tiny infinity, because the universe as people now dream it up to be, needs tinier and tinier particles to explain tinier and tinier fields.


What makes the electron?
What makes the quark?
What makes the photon?
What makes the virtual photon?
What makes the higgs boson?
What makes all of these things interact?
What exactly is in between them?
What is Quanta made out of exactly?
What is charge? Why does it repel or attract?
What makes up a Neutrino?

...and so on and so forth into endlessness. That is the path that your version of science is on. Have fun



How exactly does a Higgs Boson explain the process of inertia? Nothing has been explained, and as far as I can tell they are not even 100% sure that such a thing exists. The god particle is one of the most hyped up bullshit ideas being fed to the modern nerd since string theory.

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

Electrons, photons, bosons and other particles are make of quarks whose behavior is described by color theory.

Look, I don't know how you can be so blind to it. But you just did it again. What makes the quarks? What exactly causes color? What is in between the quarks that causes them to interact and bond? Yes it matters. It matters because the only way to explain it with our (or I should say your) understanding is to make even tinier particles creating even tinier fields. Over and over again. It matters. It matters because there is a basic and fundamental flaw in your logic that creates a kind of feedback loop where a theory falls in on itself forever like matter into a blackhole. Yes it matters.


Also, just because they have detected something that they think is a Higgs Boson, does not mean that they have proven that it does what they think that it does. If it doesn't, then it's not a higgs boson after all is it? It's just another funky particle that has never been observed outside of a particle collider. I am not even convened that all of these new particles they claim they are detecting in particle colliders are in fact new particles at all. But I don't wish to g into that right now.



It always amazes and concerns me, how much a debate with a "pro-science" freak is to a debate with a born again religious zealot. They just cannot bring themselves to accept the many holes in their idea of everything. In the end, it is all about human Psychology, the need to feel safe and the need for the human ego to be "correct". Shrink the universe down small, put it all into a tiny box and invent a "god particle" that can do it all... just so the human monkey can think they can file, categorize and easily reference an incomprehensible universe spanning without end.


Well... I am not one of you. I see a bit more clearly. But please, don't worship me! I am merely a messenger!



@ Op
Time dilation is a relativistic effect. Right?

I'd argue that finding a game that actually complies to the laws of nature completely would be a hard task indeed!!

Your talking about a guy that said that moving faster than the speed of light is completely impossible, and that a game that involves faster-than-light travel should take account of that, to be realistic??

Perhaps you'd perfer EvE to be like reality, where we can all fly around in sub-light-speed ships that take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to reach their destination? Or perhaps you should throw in how completely impossible it is for people to be respawned after death? That happens in Call of Duty btw. Maybe you should argue that in a real universe, the planets would orbit the suns, which they don't do in EvE.

I'd argue that finding a game that actually complies to the laws of nature completely would be a hard task indeed!!

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...

It's not just "too hard" to model, its impossible and damn near game-breaking.

Debating the physics inside of a computer game is daft at the best of times. Here's an example for you, but first some background for those of you who are not as big a geek as I am..

Time runs slower in instances of lower gravity, relative to other instances of space time. So, Astronauts who go to the moon etc are actually living in an instance where time is running slower than it was running down on earth. When Astronauts come back from space they have experiences less time than we have on earth. So if two theoretical twins were born EXACTLY at the same time, one could go into space and come back younger than their sibling. Now, in a warp bubble, you have separated yourself into your own instance of space time, separate from normal space time and therefore unaffected by the gravity of anything in normal space time. This would mean that you are in an instance of space time with almost infinitely less gravity. So, if you spend 2 seconds in warp that could work out as millions of years for those outside of your isolated space time "bubble". Space time.

Why isn't that in the game, eh?

(There is a theory that would negate the above about time in warp bubbles etc, but I can't be bothered to go into it.)

Hell, you would see game changing portions of this phenomenon just by warping to the outer reaches of a solar system. So, let's say your in a safe spot waiting to warp in to help a friend. You are off grid 14 AU from anything. Now, even though you would receive their call for you to warp in simultaneously with quantum computing it could be hours before you arrived there for him, even though the journey would only take seconds for you.

You see now why talking about physics in relation to a computer game is pointless?

Could be wrong though.... Time occurs more slowly in high gravity (think black holes).

Yea, that's what I said. The further you are away from a celestial object the slower time is running for you compared to someone else. Hence the example of warping to a friend, if they are waiting for you to warp in (and they are closer to a large celestial object, ie in a gravity well), they will experience said wait as being longer than you experience it as.

Edit: Ohhh, I see where I messed up. Will change it, lol. One word wrong in the first sentence of my explanation >.<
Edit2: Nevermind, I got the whole thing backwards.

Also there's nothing that prevents memory transfers in biology or chemistry. Maybe physics, but it should be roughly possible. Depends on the storage medium.

As for your smaller field stuff. On that point the facts don't back you up. At this point the scientific consensus is that quarks are the smallest component of the universe and that everything is made up of quarks and different combinations of quarks spinning in different ways generates different physical behaviors. We've not discovered anything more elementary actually and frankly, nothing more elementary is required for the standard model of physics. All known natural forces now fit within the mathematical models produced for them. While it doesn't cover the quantum mechanics models and string theory -- we'll get there. String theory may be completely wrong, but ultimately it will be the application of the scientific method that will prove it wrong and not random skepticism from those who haven't educated themselves on the topic -- myself included.

terribly derailed thread is terribly derailed.

meanwhile, EP's arguments boils down to "everyone else must be wrong because I said so"

I see. So your argument is that quarks make up everything and they just interact because they do. Sense, in actuality... it makes absolutely none. But I probably should stop trying to reason with a guy that thinks he can explain his way beyond the limitations of relativity by evoking the Enterprise's warp drive engines, and how they work in imaginary land.


My god man, it's actually not that hard. A particle has no means of interaction if there is nothing in between them causing that interaction. They don't just "magically" interact, and they are not going to just because you read it somewhere on wikipedia and you now consider yourself to be an expert.

But if you don't think things interact without touching, then I got a teaser for you. I place a iron ball inside a larger vacuum sealed glass ball. I then move a magnet around the outside of the glass ball and "magically" the iron ball moves to touch the magnet even though there is no matter between them. Or how about I just microwave something from a distance. Lots of things interact without touching.

But in all this, I feel like you haven't presented alternative theories or even tests that would prove these theories wrong in the least. Anyone can say something is wrong, but you have to create something testable to prove that it's wrong because they've already created a test to prove that it wasn't.

Hey Eternum, what's up?



Also, shed some light onto this stuff you keep saying people haven't asked you about.

Now, I would like to remind people to post constructively, please!

Warp drives don't cause you to get anywhere near the local light speed, they create a field (of totally BS space magic) that decreases the mass of the surrounding space (a 'depleted vacuum') resulting in a large negative density for the region around the ship (the 'warp tunnel'), thus raising light speed and allowing speeds of multiple AU/s without even approaching the local light speed.

The downside to to these drives is that when in standby mode (they cannot be turned off safely) the create a force akin to friction that drags the ship into a zero velocity relative to the local gravity well (usually the local star)

All joking aside, that's not a bad analogy really :)