Forums » General
Sometime in passing have a wander into Rhamus C 11, one sector away from the planet Rhamus III in C 10 . From that viewpoint you are looking at the plants rings edge on , and the rings appear as an orange line . Carefully align your ship so that the line is exactly horizontal or exactly vertical and the rings vanish completely.
I'm not suggesting that anything needs to be done , It's just an amusing optical illusion to add the the VO tourist route ...
Ecka
I'm not suggesting that anything needs to be done , It's just an amusing optical illusion to add the the VO tourist route ...
Ecka
Ever seen the rings in Infinity: Quest for Earth? Now that's a badass ring rendering method. I don't think rings are included in the combat proto, but there is a sweet video... let me see if I can find it.
edit: here it is
http://www.fl-tw.com/Infinity/Media/Videos/physics_and_motion_blur.avi
towards the end, note the blur effects too.
edit: here it is
http://www.fl-tw.com/Infinity/Media/Videos/physics_and_motion_blur.avi
towards the end, note the blur effects too.
how about a star shining clean through a planet
Genesis Device, obviously.
Genesis Device...
Damnit, where have I heard that name before??
Damnit, where have I heard that name before??
south park episode
does something different tho.
does something different tho.
Oh, I remembered now. One of those Spore gameplay videos.
....Startrek, the wrath of khan. idiots...
I should watch those movies again sometime.
Never watched any of the Startrek movies or series, but I did hear about a genesis device in a Spore gameplay video.
I think a gameplay demo used the 'Fight Music' (no idea what's it called, not really interested/proficient in the St universe), as well.
I would hazard a guess that it has more SF references sprinkled throughout the game.
I would hazard a guess that it has more SF references sprinkled throughout the game.
I like the gravitational lensing idea that was in the screenshot. Nothing like a planet made of solid neutronium!
Alternately, it's another shoemaker-levy comet impact event.
Alternately, it's another shoemaker-levy comet impact event.
Here's what Earth would look like if it was made out of neutronium. The site has other cool pictures, too. This is a very old computer-generated image, so it's not spectacular, just very interesting.
that is, IF neutron stars would exist of corse ;)
Q: We often hear about Missing Matter and Dark Energy. What are they?
A: They are examples of those “invented fictional entities” I mentioned.
• Missing matter was invented because there isn’t enough real matter in the outer reaches of galaxies to account for how they rotate if the only mechanism you are willing to consider is gravity.
• Dark Energy is a force that “has to exist” if the expansion of the universe is to be explainable by Einstein’s General Relativity.
• WIMPs, MACHOs, neutron stars, and the “strings” in String Theory are similar fabrications.
All of these are Fictional Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories – FAIRIE DUST.
source
anyone here ever heard of the electric universe and plasma cosmology? I recently discovered it and from a laymans perspective it's pretty interesting.
Q: We often hear about Missing Matter and Dark Energy. What are they?
A: They are examples of those “invented fictional entities” I mentioned.
• Missing matter was invented because there isn’t enough real matter in the outer reaches of galaxies to account for how they rotate if the only mechanism you are willing to consider is gravity.
• Dark Energy is a force that “has to exist” if the expansion of the universe is to be explainable by Einstein’s General Relativity.
• WIMPs, MACHOs, neutron stars, and the “strings” in String Theory are similar fabrications.
All of these are Fictional Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories – FAIRIE DUST.
source
anyone here ever heard of the electric universe and plasma cosmology? I recently discovered it and from a laymans perspective it's pretty interesting.
Yes, I've heard of plasma cosmology, and I do feel that it's a under explored aspect. Along with gravity, the EM force also has an infinite range, so not accounting for them both means that there would be holes in any theory of galactic development that omits their influence.
As for neutron stars, they do exist- we've observed them. There are hundreds of them that have been cataloged, so their inclusion in that list is rather odd since they passed scrutiny quite some time ago. The other structures/particles mentioned there have no observed evidence of their existence, at all, aside from the galactic rotation problems. Even then, they're simply theoretical kludges, derived in an effort to produce a working explanation for observed phenomena.
The important part is that experiments can be conceived and conducted to either prove or deny their existence. That is the most basic element of scientific theory. The only time you can really classify a theory as "Fairie Dust" is when an experiment cannot be conceived to test it. Without a means of testing, it becomes so much smoke and mirrors.
Of course, there is a very substantial difference between being able to conceive of an experiment, and actually conducting it. An excellent example of this is the much-touted Large Hadron Collider- it was conceived long before we could actually construct it, by a factor of decades. Once it starts smashing in earnest, we ought to find the evidence of the last of the Standard Model particles that has not yet been definitively observed. Even though we're 99% certain of what the result will be, the LHC was still built because that's what has to be done in order to make good science. It's a bit of a shame how often scientists forget that basic tenet, and it seems that the person who wrote that Q&A was one of them (or was pressed for time, which is just as bad, and doubly so when dealing with non-scientists who may not understand scientific methodology).
As for neutron stars, they do exist- we've observed them. There are hundreds of them that have been cataloged, so their inclusion in that list is rather odd since they passed scrutiny quite some time ago. The other structures/particles mentioned there have no observed evidence of their existence, at all, aside from the galactic rotation problems. Even then, they're simply theoretical kludges, derived in an effort to produce a working explanation for observed phenomena.
The important part is that experiments can be conceived and conducted to either prove or deny their existence. That is the most basic element of scientific theory. The only time you can really classify a theory as "Fairie Dust" is when an experiment cannot be conceived to test it. Without a means of testing, it becomes so much smoke and mirrors.
Of course, there is a very substantial difference between being able to conceive of an experiment, and actually conducting it. An excellent example of this is the much-touted Large Hadron Collider- it was conceived long before we could actually construct it, by a factor of decades. Once it starts smashing in earnest, we ought to find the evidence of the last of the Standard Model particles that has not yet been definitively observed. Even though we're 99% certain of what the result will be, the LHC was still built because that's what has to be done in order to make good science. It's a bit of a shame how often scientists forget that basic tenet, and it seems that the person who wrote that Q&A was one of them (or was pressed for time, which is just as bad, and doubly so when dealing with non-scientists who may not understand scientific methodology).
Nicely put, IRS. Another thing that bugs me a lot about dark matter is how many of my LDS friends think it's got to be true, and that it's proof that there's a god since we can observe its effects but can't ever detect it. These same people who believe dark matter on the basis that it's a cool theory (which it is), dismiss evolution as "just a theory," not understanding that theory is miles ahead of hypothesis. They point out all the debate on evolution, not realizing that the debate is all about "how," and not much about "if" anymore.
Interesting... except, just as in the cosmology thing, scientists who bring up "creative design" over evolution, are treated exactly the same as the plasma guys are by the big bang people... heh
http://jloft.com/blog/2008/02/26/expelled-documentary-ben-steins-inconvenient-truth/
So.. while there might not be much about "if" from quite a few people.. maybe there should be? As long as we've been cataloging specie on this world, how many times have we seen -any- species evolve into a new, better one? True, species adapt to changing environments, this we know.. But there are too many statements of "Well, we havent found any fossils for this species, but we know they had to exist between this species, and it's later, more evolved version" Just as the cosmologists say about "Dark Matter". :)
break19
http://jloft.com/blog/2008/02/26/expelled-documentary-ben-steins-inconvenient-truth/
So.. while there might not be much about "if" from quite a few people.. maybe there should be? As long as we've been cataloging specie on this world, how many times have we seen -any- species evolve into a new, better one? True, species adapt to changing environments, this we know.. But there are too many statements of "Well, we havent found any fossils for this species, but we know they had to exist between this species, and it's later, more evolved version" Just as the cosmologists say about "Dark Matter". :)
break19
I think there's an appropriate amount of "if," in that if something really big did come along, it would of course take some time to catch on as these things do, but we'd be able to let go of evolution. I don't think it'll happen, though.
I'm all for intelligent design, being a bit religious and all. I think God would know everything and have infinite patience, and would get a lot of satisfaction from setting things up just right so that an extremely complicated evolutionary web would eventually spit out something in his image. That's totally not science, though.
I'm all for intelligent design, being a bit religious and all. I think God would know everything and have infinite patience, and would get a lot of satisfaction from setting things up just right so that an extremely complicated evolutionary web would eventually spit out something in his image. That's totally not science, though.
Maybe I should have been an business major. Then I too could be sitting around and applying my "healthy dose of skepticism" to the scientific method and mentioning that as a lay-person, I find the blabbering of quacks and politicians to be credible.