Spring RTS Engine

Panda wrote:

Comp1337 wrote:

Scikar wrote:Sure you can. If it's black on the outside it will absorb more heat from infrared so it will be warmer than if it were reflective or white. Assuming there's an infrared source outside of course, but while you wouldn't be able to demonstrate that it is not black (because it could be reflective or there could be no infrared source outside it), you could demonstrate that it is black, so long as there is an infrared source.

you wouldnt have anything to compare to, a reflective box near the sun is still hot

If you had a very specialized instrument that could tell what different colors would be at certain temperatures at the location of the box (it's distance from the sun) you might be able to tell what color it is.

Can a blind person distinguish colors? I guess it would depend on the circumstances.

I believe this argument was an analogy to the old one "if one was raised in a cave with ones back permanently turned toward the entrance, experiencing the outside world only through the shadows of people behind them in the entrance, would one see the shadows of them as living beings"
LONG, HORRIBLE SENTENCE I KNOW

Giving the bound person a mirror (knowledge about distance to source and instruments) kinda voids the whole idea

Felix the Cat wrote:What do you mean by "the world"? The entire universe? Our galaxy? The Solar System? The Earth? New York City? Your dog?

Gravity's effect on the system goes down as you go along that list. "Particles with gravity" can nearly adequately explain the behavior of the visible universe (assuming, as modern science does, that there's a bunch of "dark matter" hiding somewhere, perhaps in God's pocket) but wouldn't even scratch the surface of explaining the behavior of, say, a rhesus monkey.

you talkin to me?! i mean this existence.

This theory is just about how everything starts from a very simple model, but can be expanded into complex models like a monkey. but nobody could actually explain how it works, because its too complex, and it all works "perfectly" just by "accident", AKA "evolution". evolution of these tiny tiny "particles" which creates atoms and everything...

Emergence is pretty common in the universe... it's always fascinating though!

Comp1337 wrote:I believe this argument was an analogy to the old one "if one was raised in a cave with ones back permanently turned toward the entrance, experiencing the outside world only through the shadows of people behind them in the entrance, would one see the shadows of them as living beings"
LONG, HORRIBLE SENTENCE I KNOW

Giving the bound person a mirror (knowledge about distance to source and instruments) kinda voids the whole idea

My opinion of this idea is that it can be squabbled over until you turn blue and a person will get no where squabbling to much and not exploring. There is likely to be many mysterious things to explore and creativity (an instrument) can help with that.

Yes, I know that these statements are very general, but there are so many different answers as to what the outcome of that situation would be that it would be silly to try and give a more specific answer without more information especially if you don't want to write walls of text.

But Trademark, the inner workings of atoms are completely dominated by the strong and weak interactions and the electromagnetic force. Gravity has nothing to do with it.

Gravity and electromagnetic forces are related.

Panda wrote:Gravity and electromagnetic forces are related.

Not at all; actually, strong and weak forces are related to the electromagnetic force and gravity is kind of left out because it doesn't obviously relate.

I though it all depended on the available energy?

tombom wrote:

Panda wrote:Gravity and electromagnetic forces are related.

Not at all; actually, strong and weak forces are related to the electromagnetic force and gravity is kind of left out because it doesn't obviously relate.

I haven't taken physics or anything other than consumer chemistry yet, but I was reading about Einstein (Einstein came up with his theory because he wanted to figure out how to walk on sunbeam, by the way. It's maaaagic. He had a bad first marriage too.) one day and thought there was something in there about gravity and electromagnetic fields being related. Do you know a lot about the theory of relativity and quantum physics? I don't recall all of the details.

Here's some articles:

Gravity
http://www.reference.com/search?q=gravity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_magnetic_field

They say:

Electromagnetic fields around a star or planet and gravity are related to the rotation of the star or planet.

Gravity is related to rotation because rotation is responsible for the formation of tides for convection.

"In general relativity gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures that cause inertially moving objects to accelerate towards each other."

The steller magnetic field is generated by the motion of conductive plasma.

Pulsars emit a beam of electromagnetic radiation allowing us to detect the pulse from earth if it sweeps past the direction of our solar system.

The energy radiated by the magnetic field gradually slows down the rotation rate.


So, they're related due to convective forces?

Panda wrote:Gravity and electromagnetic forces are related.

Physicists badly want to unify gravity with the other three forces... if you have some rigorous proof of a way to unify gravity with the other three forces, publish it and win the next Nobel Prize in Physics!

First there were three forces: electricity, magentism, and gravity.

Then James Clerk Maxwell came along and proved that electricity and magnetism are caused by the same force, producing two total forces: electromagnetism and gravity.

Then came the 20th century and with it quantum physics, which sought to explain the inner workings of matter and energy at a sub-atomic level. Early in the 20th century, physicists realized that a different force was required to keep positively-charged protons from flying out of the nucleus of an atom - hence the strong nuclear force was discovered. Shortly thereafter, the weak nuclear force was hypothesized as a solution for several outstanding problems, including what mechanism drives beta decay (in which a neutron decays into a proton and an electron (and an electron antineutrino as well, but that came much later). As the 20th century continued, quantum physicists discovered quarks, the (for now) fundamental building blocks of matter, and the strong and weak nuclear forces changed into the strong interaction and the weak interaction. In the 1970s, some very smart physicists discovered and proved that electromagnetism and the weak interaction were two aspects of the same fundamental mechanism, dubbed the electroweak interaction. This is where we stand now, as far as what's been proven. Gravity, the strong interaction, and the electroweak interaction (electricity, magnetism, and the weak interaction combined) are the three fundamental forces, as far as can be proven today. Theories exist that attempt to unify the strong interaction with the electroweak interaction, and theories exist that attempt to explain gravity in a quantum way (laying the groundwork for a future unification of gravity with the other two forces, but none of these theories have been proven to this date.

Many Nobel Prizes were awarded over the duration of this process, and many fancy dinners had.

But always, always remember the one fundamental truth of mathematics, and by extension theoretical physics:

Paul Erd├àÔÇÿs wrote:A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems.

Panda, gravity and electromagnetism are certainly related in the sense that one can cause the other. However, the scenario given is not an example of gravity and electromagnetism being related in that they are derived from the same higher mechanism. In your scenario, gravity causes a field of matter to coalesce into a sun and some planets; during this process (as Trademark's initial post actually shows) the matter attains an angular (rotational) velocity. Due to gravitic force, the matter at the center of the sun/planet gets very compressed and thus very hot. In the case of the sun, the matter is primarily composed of hydrogen and helium, and thus begins fusing into heavier elements and releasing light. In the case of a rocky planet, the matter is primarily composed of heavier elements (carbon, silicon, etc), and the matter at the center becomes superheated and turns into either a very dense, hot liquid or a plasma. As the matter at the center is rotating, it causes a magnetic field; the fact that the matter at the center is liquid causes it to rotate at a different speed than the outside of the planet, further increasing the magnetic field. Stars have magnetic fields for a similar reason, but what happens at the core of a star is not fully explained. (Heck, we only have a very shaky idea of what lies at the center of our own planet, and we can only offer hypotheses of what's at the center of Jupiter - and the Sun is a much larger and more complicated machine than those two.)

Essentially what we have is gravitic effects causing electromagnetic effects, but this is no proof or disproof of gravity-electroweak unity.

Neat stuff.

Panda wrote:

Comp1337 wrote:

Scikar wrote:Sure you can. If it's black on the outside it will absorb more heat from infrared so it will be warmer than if it were reflective or white. Assuming there's an infrared source outside of course, but while you wouldn't be able to demonstrate that it is not black (because it could be reflective or there could be no infrared source outside it), you could demonstrate that it is black, so long as there is an infrared source.

you wouldnt have anything to compare to, a reflective box near the sun is still hot

If you had a very specialized instrument that could tell what different colors would be at certain temperatures at the location of the box (it's distance from the sun) you might be able to tell what color it is.

Can a blind person distinguish colors? I guess it would depend on the circumstances.

How would you tough know how far from the sun it was, and if it was stoped? If you have never been outside the black box, you cant know things like that.

What I meant is like: We cannot discover how the universe works being inside it, we would need to go into a upper dimension to discover that... or into a lower dimension, since in the same way that our universe is probally inside another universe there must be universes inside our universe :)

we are not inside in the universe, we are the universe, there is no place outside of the universe. its not a "box"

but you are right, we can never know how it all works, it becomes too complex when you dig deep enough.

TradeMark wrote:we are not inside in the universe, we are the universe, there is no place outside of the universe. its not a "box"

Yeah, I think I forgot that "universe" means everthing that exists, not just our spot in existance :) . However how can we know if we are not inside a gigant black box, so immense that everthing that was created by the Big Bang is still far away from its walls? :)

manored wrote:

Panda wrote:

Comp1337 wrote: you wouldnt have anything to compare to, a reflective box near the sun is still hot

If you had a very specialized instrument that could tell what different colors would be at certain temperatures at the location of the box (it's distance from the sun) you might be able to tell what color it is.

Can a blind person distinguish colors? I guess it would depend on the circumstances.

How would you tough know how far from the sun it was, and if it was stoped? If you have never been outside the black box, you cant know things like that.

What I meant is like: We cannot discover how the universe works being inside it, we would need to go into a upper dimension to discover that... or into a lower dimension, since in the same way that our universe is probally inside another universe there must be universes inside our universe :)

Ha! I was right

OMG, ITS PROVEN NOW:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/phys ... press.html

If equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created, they ought to have annihilated each other. But this did not happen, there was a tiny deviation of one extra particle of matter for every 10 billion antimatter particles. It is this broken symmetry that seems to have caused our cosmos to survive.

Thats what i was talking about in my video too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6XMwDkVrVE wrote:Maybe this is how our world was also created: just symmetric particles + one imbalance in the symmetry = BOOM

I WIN!

Bastards stole my nobel price

You do know not all antimatter and matter combinations produce just mutual annihilation and photons?

Firstly, the OPs movie link is just a simulation of (probably)newtonian gravity.

Secondly, speculative physics with people with little physics educations. And popular science articles usually aren't that informative. Don't think it will lead anywhere.

I have a physics bachelor, and I am tempted to start speculating here too. Ah well, i will just say two things:

• I think the whole thing when the collapse of the wave function thing is probably not really understood well enough. When exactly does it happen? It somehow being an effect over the entire universe is prevented by it being 'the only non-linear effect'.
• In general relativity, (one of)the derivation of the geodesic equation has a part in it that reads like an action. In classical mechanics, action is an integral over time that is minimalized. In the case of the derivation it is an integral over the parameter giving the position of the space-time path.(Of which we find an extremum.) Using that impulse is an generator of translations and making things operators, there might be a way to turn it into a postulated equation which all spacetime paths need to satisfy. If i knew what 'finding an extremum', meant in this case. This approach gives equations that very hard to work with, though.(And it could just be untrue.)

TradeMark wrote:OMG, ITS PROVEN NOW:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/phys ... press.html

If equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created, they ought to have annihilated each other. But this did not happen, there was a tiny deviation of one extra particle of matter for every 10 billion antimatter particles. It is this broken symmetry that seems to have caused our cosmos to survive.

Thats what i was talking about in my video too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6XMwDkVrVE wrote:Maybe this is how our world was also created: just symmetric particles + one imbalance in the symmetry = BOOM

I WIN!

Bastards stole my nobel price

you're a total idiot