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 / Does anyone else's brain register 'clear' as a color?

Author
Message
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 30th May 2012 11:40
Link
This is my second thread on color, and that is epic. I was just wondering, does anyone else register 'clear' as a color in their head? Whenever I look at a clear object such as glass or plastic etc, at the same time I see the colors of the objects beyond the clear object, I still see the clear object and perceive it as having a color. The color is almost kinda whitish or grayish to me. Anyone else get that? Or am I just different?

[/href]
Back to top
Profile PM Website
maho76
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st May 2011
Location: universe-hub, playing the flute
Posted: 30th May 2012 12:58
Link
white glas is white, white milk glass is white. both are clear at the same time.^^ when you look sidewards into a windowscreen, you will see that normally glass is some sort of green/blue wich comes from the melting process of different sorts of granit/sand. so "Clear" is not a color, its an attribute of material. but every material itself has a color.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 30th May 2012 13:07 Edited at: 30th May 2012 13:08
Link
Quote: "so "Clear" is not a color"
Indeed, but I was just wondering if people interpreted it as a color. I do.

I think when you see something, the brain looks for certain attributes by which it can describe it and one of those is color, but when you see something clear, you only see the refracted colors but the brain makes it a color of its own anyway. At least for me, if I see something red behind a piece of glass or a something blue behind a piece of glass for example, I still see the glass as being the same, 'clear' color. Interesting eh?

[/href]
Back to top
Profile PM Website
maho76
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st May 2011
Location: universe-hub, playing the flute
Posted: 30th May 2012 13:16
Link
i know what you mean, and thats why i give the sample with the glassscreen. when you know how things are working/ why they appear as they appear, the interpretation gets lost and somewhen you will not say "a clear window" but "white glass" "green/blue/pinkish glass" etc. ... so no, i learned too much about materials and colors in school and practice as a painter/artist to see "clear" as a color.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 30th May 2012 13:21
Link
Ah! I see how that would work.

[/href]
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 30th May 2012 14:05
Link
When I look at glass I see time.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 30th May 2012 14:11
Link
What does time look like?

[/href]
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 30th May 2012 14:43
Link
Colour is a strange one, I mean, we don't all percieve colour the same way, some people can look at a colour and know how to recreate it, some people get an emotional reaction to certain colours. Really, our brains idea of colour is probably as unique as our own personalities. I've thought about this quite a lot, ever since I was a kid, and the thing that sparked it was the effect of early videogame magazines. I mean, often these magazines would use rediculous colour schemes, there's something about magenta text on a cyan backdrop - it warps perception having 2 distincly different colours with the same brightness. I remember drawing a little diagram of an eye and how it worked when I was a kid, and my entire family calling me an idiot... yeah, like there's no way that everything we see is reflected light, it's all just magic, and I'm the idiot.
Enquiring minds ehh!, good thing we have this forum. If you consider how your eyes see, it's tricky to apportion a colour to something that only really affects colour. Like water - most of the time we're looking at the reflected sky, or refracted 'floor' - water can have a distinct colour of course, but it's a result of different factors, like dirt, algae etc. For me, when I look at something transparent, I don't consider the object itself, unless it has a fairly distinct colour. Water is apparantly blue, but when the light passing through it wipes out any visual indication of the original colour, well we have to call it transparent.

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
WLGfx
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Nov 2007
Location: NW United Kingdom
Posted: 30th May 2012 14:59
Link
Hmmm...

Well, 'clear' screen to me is getting rid of all the stuff off the screen and either resets it to a default colour or the one you've set. Where-as, to 'clear' a desk is the same thing, getting rid of all the junk off your desk and leaving it empty. Although you don't have a choice with the default colour there. So, to me, I guess clear would mean transparent, not of any colour really, making the cleared space void and empty.

Mental arithmetic? Me? (That's for computers) I can't subtract a fart from a plate of beans!
Warning! May contain Nuts!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nickydude
Retired Moderator
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Nov 2006
Location: Look outside...
Posted: 30th May 2012 15:13
Link
Quote: "When I look at glass I see time."


When I look at glass I see what's left of my beer!

I reject your reality and substitute my own...
Back to top
Profile PM
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 30th May 2012 16:00 Edited at: 30th May 2012 16:04
Link
Quote: "What does time look like?"


It looks like a 3D drop in a 3D pond with a 3D whirlpool in the middle. When I say 3D I mean a sort of Icosahedron shape.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 30th May 2012 16:26 Edited at: 30th May 2012 16:30
Link
I see transparent things as having a colour with an alpha value less than one

Quote: "It looks like a 3D drop in a 3D pond with a 3D whirlpool in the middle. When I say 3D I mean a sort of Icosahedron shape."


Whatever shape space-time may be, time itself is a one-dimensional quantity, so saying it looks like a 3D anything already makes no sense whatsoever...
Even if you were referring to space time, it is 4D so could be compared with something in 3D by analogy, and if there was something with high density rotating very fast it would produce a whirlpool like shape, but where icosahedron comes from I have no idea. First of all an icosahedron is a polygonal shape, not a smooth surface and secondly it's a closed shape...

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 30th May 2012 17:22
Link
Have you ever tried to imagine a colour that doesn't exist?

Back to top
Profile PM
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 30th May 2012 17:48 Edited at: 30th May 2012 17:51
Link
Quote: "Whatever shape space-time may be, time itself is a one-dimensional quantity, so saying it looks like a 3D anything already makes no sense whatsoever...
Even if you were referring to space time, it is 4D so could be compared with something in 3D by analogy, and if there was something with high density rotating very fast it would produce a whirlpool like shape, but where icosahedron comes from I have no idea. First of all an icosahedron is a polygonal shape, not a smooth surface and secondly it's a closed shape..."


According to a guess by science. But my guess is based on some computer physics that I have worked on. And My physics suggest that time is just a 3D quantity of very small particles, a lot like water, but not bonded.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
DJ Almix
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Location: Freedom
Posted: 30th May 2012 18:35
Link
Quote: "This is my second thread on color, and that is epic. I was just wondering, does anyone else register 'clear' as a color in their head? Whenever I look at a clear object such as glass or plastic etc, at the same time I see the colors of the objects beyond the clear object, I still see the clear object and perceive it as having a color. The color is almost kinda whitish or grayish to me. Anyone else get that? Or am I just different? "


I've always imagined clear as more of a thing rather than a color, but in an extreme case like this:



It appears to me as a dull grey


Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fallout3fan
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th May 2009
Location:
Posted: 30th May 2012 18:39
Link
I can't know what true clear is because of my glasses that keep on getting dirty.

_!!!!_
,0~U -Well I do say, its been quite a fancy forum for
__-____TheZachadoodle.________________________________
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 30th May 2012 18:48
Link
Nope, don't interpret clear as a color. Color and transparency are both primarily electronic attributes; however, different aspects of the same.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 30th May 2012 18:52
Link
Quote: "It appears to me as a dull grey"


Ahhh...the properties of the material itself allow light to pass through it. What was done to the surface of the material is what makes it appear gray or white.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 30th May 2012 18:56 Edited at: 30th May 2012 19:04
Link
Quote: "According to a guess by science."

Scientific method

Quote: "But my guess is based on some computer physics that I have worked on. And My physics suggest that time is just a 3D quantity of very small particles, a lot like water, but not bonded."

Ah, and your physics also has nothing to do with reality.

You can simulate stuff as much as you like it doesn't prove anything. Science is not a set of ideas, it's a method which arises naturally from simple logic. If you're going to throw away logic in this "physics" of yours then what's left?

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 30th May 2012 19:05
Link
Thumbs up Diggsey

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Slow Programmer
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2006
Location: USA, Tennessee
Posted: 30th May 2012 19:13
Link
What color is the air that you are looking through to see the "clear" glass?

There are two kinds of computer users. Those that use Macs and those that wish they did.
Back to top
Profile PM
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 30th May 2012 19:30
Link
Quote: "What color is the air that you are looking through to see the "clear" glass?"


It's irrelevant for the purpose you stated. The gasses that make up the majority of it are colorless and there isn't enough of it between your eye and the glass to affect photons in any manner perceptible by humans.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 30th May 2012 20:32
Link
If something is truly clear then you cannot see it. The fact you can see glass means it isn't 100% transparent. There is no "clear colour" as maho said.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 30th May 2012 21:02
Link
Quote: "If something is truly clear then you cannot see it."


True for air...which is a gas, has no common plane, and has a relatively uniform density and composition. Not true for something like a clean pane of glass. The reason you can see glass is that it's either dirty or you're viewing it at an angle causing refraction. This refraction is caused by a change in density and material from air to glass and back to air. Refraction is not always equal to "not being clear".


Quote: "The fact you can see glass means it isn't 100% transparent."

Pure glass is 100% transparent for the purposes of this thread, in addition to being considered 100% transparent because its atoms have no free electrons to absorb photons and re-emit them (keeping it simple here). Thus, photons pass right through the structure.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 30th May 2012 21:23
Link
Quote: "You can simulate stuff as much as you like it doesn't prove anything. Science is not a set of ideas, it's a method which arises naturally from simple logic. If you're going to throw away logic in this "physics" of yours then what's left?"


To be honest, I think that most scientists are autistic, and Newton, and Einstein are said to have been autistic. Autistic people hate change. That's why you are stuck with this time nonsense.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 30th May 2012 21:32 Edited at: 30th May 2012 21:35
Link
Quote: "I think that"


Again, speaking with the "I think that" (I'm speaking in a friendly manner here )

Science is not "I think that", it is "I have observed these 'facts'".

Quote: "are said to have"

Little green men are also "said to" exist. Please support your argument on autism with cited research. Also, have you conducted scientific research into time? If so, what were the results? Perhaps you could explain time dilation in satellites?

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 30th May 2012 21:35 Edited at: 30th May 2012 21:39
Link
Are you really suggesting that Newton, who among (many) other things invented an entire new branch of mathematics to solve a puzzle he had been set by a friend, and Einstein who went against the scientific belief of the time with his particle theory of light which won him a Nobel prize and then went on to invent special and general relativity, the equations of which still haven't been solved in all but the simplest cases today were so against change that science has stopped advancing?

Also, autistic people are known for not liking change in their lives, ie. they like routine, that's not the same as not liking to learn new things. And most scientists are not autistic...

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 30th May 2012 21:36
Link
You're saying time is like unbonded water dude.

Back to top
Profile PM
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 30th May 2012 21:37
Link
Dang Diggsey, you're on fire today

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 30th May 2012 21:50 Edited at: 30th May 2012 21:53
Link
Quote: "Are you really suggesting that Newton, who among (many) other things invented an entire new branch of mathematics to solve a puzzle he had been set by a friend, and Einstein who went against the scientific belief of the time with his particle theory of light which won him a Nobel prize and then went on to invent special and general relativity, the equations of which still haven't been solved in all but the simplest cases today were so against change that science has stopped advancing?"


Yes. Science got stuck years ago with Newton. Einstein merely elaborated on Newton, and camouflaged an old theory with new words. Spacetime replaced Aether for example. If you try to work out the physics for Quantum particles you will find that they obey standard physics. The oddities that they produce, are actually the mistakes coming to light.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
DeadTomGC
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Aug 2010
Location: LU
Posted: 30th May 2012 22:23
Link
Hey, DBD79, I thought you already got the "master of the scrap heap" achievement.


Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 30th May 2012 22:45 Edited at: 30th May 2012 22:46
Link
Quote: "Einstein merely elaborated on Newton, and camouflaged an old theory with new words."


Uhhh...these men, among others, took "science" and turned it into science. They demonstrated many theories and explained them in the only acceptable form - mathematics. They often developed their own theories and formulas.

Quote: "Spacetime replaced Aether for example."


Hmmm. Better get my alchemy set out and try to demonstrate some good old fashioned alchemy. I've got some lead here that I'll transmute into some gold bars. As amusing as trying to explain the "how" of science through religion.

Quote: "The oddities that they produce, are actually the mistakes coming to light."

Demonstrate your assertion. There were many "oddities" in things like electronic structure/behavior and the periodic table which people used to try and debunk the theories behind them. Later, when either further research was made, or finer resolutions of measurement were available, the theories held true. This is the case with what you speak of. Whether or not theories will hold true when more precise measurements can be made is something nobody will know until that time comes.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 30th May 2012 22:53
Link
You will not realise how far out science is until you recreate the physics of the Universe from scratch. Then you will know that most of science is more like science fiction.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 30th May 2012 23:01
Link
Quote: "You will not realise how far out science is until you recreate the physics of the Universe from scratch."


Your recreation is just an approximation. Period. Until you can program everything down to its most finite rules (if there is even a level which is finite) then you have an approximation.

Quote: "Then you will know that most of science is more like science fiction."


Truth is stranger than fiction. I'll take science and "science fiction" over the aether....
Contributions to my life by science: too many to count
Contributions to my life by aether pushing alchemists: probably somewhere near zero

You can keep your fantasy and dragons.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 30th May 2012 23:09
Link
Quote: "Your recreation is just an approximation. Period. Until you can program everything down to its most finite rules (if there is even a level which is finite) then you have an approximation."


That's what I did, and that's what I mean.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 30th May 2012 23:15 Edited at: 30th May 2012 23:20
Link
Quote: "That's what I did, and that's what I mean."


If it's just an approximation, then how do you know science is off? I will reference my previous comments about electronic structure/periodic table. Truth is neither of us knows what is true and what isn't. That is the point in science where one must choose, based on evidence, what they think holds true.

I wonder, can two posts occupy the same thread at the same instant?

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 30th May 2012 23:28
Link
I started from the Beginning of the Universe by creating zero, then creating movement with no propulsion mechanisms, and then evolving physics of time, gravity, magnetism from this starting point. And then evolving particles larger than the zero particles. I'm pretty sure that there is only one way to do it.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 30th May 2012 23:34
Link
Again, it was an approximation. There's a reason companies like Boeing build models then full size aircraft instead of just relying on computer simulations. If they did just rely on computer simulations, you'd get something like Airbus, with planes crashing into trees and falling out of the sky. *snickers*

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 30th May 2012 23:40
Link
Quote: "If you try to work out the physics for Quantum particles you will find that they obey standard physics. The oddities that they produce, are actually the mistakes coming to light."

If it happens in real life then it's not a "mistake"... Quantum mechanics is the simplest mathematical model for describing what we've observed and making predictions. If I want to calculate the probability of an electron with a particular energy making its way though a potential difference barrier, I can use the equations of quantum mechanics to calculate that. If I then do the experiment it will give the exact same results.

What you've done is incapable of producing results that match up with reality.

Quote: "That's what I did, and that's what I mean."


No, you didn't... There's so many things wrong with that it's hard to find a place to start, but I'll try: first, you haven't done any actual experiments. You say you've simulated the universe down to the smallest part, and yet you haven't proved what the smallest part is. Anything you create based on nothing is pure fiction, and not even science fiction at that, which is far more realistic than anything you've said so far. Science fiction is about looking at how science has evolved and predicting how it will continue in the future. There's a reason science is like science fiction: the predictions science fiction makes are not always wrong. (star trek alone predicted flat screens, mobile phones, computer translation, voice recognition, matter-energy conversion, etc.)

What you've done is just said that all of science is wrong, with no evidence to back up any of your statements, on the basis that you've simulated it on a computer, and seemingly very little knowledge of the science you've disregarded... One could just as easily claim that the earth was flat. Then there's the fact that alot of the physics you're claiming is completely wrong is required for modern computers to even function at all.

This is how science works:
- You find an observation that can't be explained by the current theories.
- You create a new theory, or make an adjustment to a theory which you think will explain this new phenomenon.
- You test the theory in a new experiment.

Where is the experimental evidence that suggests that the whole of physics is flawed? (And don't start babbling about some vague ideas of things not being right, link to the experiment, the data, and then explain why that data means that physics is flawed)

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 31st May 2012 00:01
Link
OK, but you should try it, and then you will get what I mean. Start with a blank canvas, no physics. Work up from there, but working up so that you end up with today's physics. Don't however take Quantum physics for granted. You want the two slit experiment to make sense, and you want action at a distance to make sense, but they are your goals, and your start point is zero.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 31st May 2012 00:04
Link
Quote: "Start with a blank canvas, no physics. Work up from there, but working up so that you end up with today's physics."


I'm done...this is like the airplane on a treadmill discussion....

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 31st May 2012 00:10 Edited at: 31st May 2012 00:11
Link
Quote: "I'm done...this is like the airplane on a treadmill discussion...."


This is harder to understand if you don't try it. It took me 3 years to put my first thing on the blank canvas.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nateholio
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: I\'ve Been Everywhere
Posted: 31st May 2012 00:13
Link
Quote: "This is harder to understand if you don't try it."


I understand it completely. You are trying to say men of science are wrong while all the while disregarding scientific method.

Anywho, I gotta be done with it.

In Development: K96 - Combat Simulation
Keep your Hope and Change, I choose individual Liberty!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 31st May 2012 00:16
Link
Quote: "I understand it completely. You are trying to say men of science are wrong while all the while disregarding scientific method."


No, I'm saying that the scientific method working backwards doesn't work. You have to work forwards from scratch.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 31st May 2012 00:47
Link
Oh dear this thread blew up!

Quote: "Have you ever tried to imagine a colour that doesn't exist?"
That is always a great deal o fun!

[/href]
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Ortu
DBPro Master
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 31st May 2012 05:18
Link
The problem with the kind of simulations that you are doing is that you generally get out just what you put in. It's basically designed to spit out the exact result you are looking for because it was designed to prove that result from the beginning. It proves nothing if the only rules governing your simulation are ones you yourself impose based on your own preconceptions and interest. Unless it can be proven that those rules exist in and apply to reality. A simulation will show whatever it's creator wants it to, particularly if the rules are made from scratch by said creator

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 31st May 2012 14:06 Edited at: 31st May 2012 14:11
Link
It doesn't work like that, it works like a fractal generator. You put in a small amount of physics, and it builds the rest itself. You don't put in any formulas for gravity, or anything like that. Basically I put in a routine to create spacetime, and its a sort of array, self building. A bit like the Game Of Life, but with a different approach.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
WLGfx
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Nov 2007
Location: NW United Kingdom
Posted: 31st May 2012 22:39
Link
Well, that wasn't very clear!

And I'm a little fuzzy on the colour of it too...

Mental arithmetic? Me? (That's for computers) I can't subtract a fart from a plate of beans!
Warning! May contain Nuts!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
BatVink
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 1st Jun 2012 12:48
Link
Quote: " Einstein who went against the scientific belief of the time with his particle theory of light which won him a Nobel prize and then went on to invent special and general relativity"


...but don't forget his General theory of Relativity was wrong

His interpretation of the constant to "stabilise the universe" was incorrect, and was removed for a time, then reintroduced to account for a different anomaly that he hadn't realised (Dark Matter and Dark Energy).

So he was right for the wrong reasons! He saw clarity where there should have been colour - a grey area

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 1st Jun 2012 13:12 Edited at: 1st Jun 2012 13:17
Link
Yes but the cosmological constant had to be reversed to account for Dark Matter. Einstein decided that the Universe would either contract, or stay the same, so his cosmological constant was for either of those scenarios, and that was due to Newton. The expansion of the universe requires the cosmological constant to be reversed. And this behaviour is due to something in my theory, not Newton's. So as I said, Einstein was only re-calculating Newton's theory. If you think about it, Einstein couldn't have been more wrong..

1/ Contracting
2/ Stay the same.
3/ Expanding

...Einstein got 2 out of 3 wrong, the worst case.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-22 09:40:44
Your offset time is: 2025-05-22 09:40:44