|
Gravity (Wishlist)
Gravity // Wishlist
Apr 13, 2004, 11:08pm
I'd like the ability to select a cell and set the gravity in it so I can
have multiple gravity settings in different areas
Apr 13, 2004, 11:43pm
Thats an extra 8 bytes per cell, and thats like quarter of a GB for a P3000
and an extra 4GB for AW (if i worked it out right) for very little useful
gain... having the plugin server change your gravity by setting attributes
in zones would be much more efficent and much more useful.
- MR
[View Quote]"calhoun" <coen at charter.net> wrote in message
news:407c80f6 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I'd like the ability to select a cell and set the gravity in it so I can
> have multiple gravity settings in different areas
>
>
|
Apr 14, 2004, 2:46am
A planet doesn't have different gravity at different spots, therefore there
is no way that this will be considered.
I suggest you learn some physics.
[View Quote]"calhoun" <coen at charter.net> wrote in message
news:407c80f6 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I'd like the ability to select a cell and set the gravity in it so I can
> have multiple gravity settings in different areas
>
>
|
Apr 14, 2004, 3:49am
Actually, there are gravity differences all over earth, but it's minimal.
[View Quote]"starfleet" <Starfleet> wrote in message
news:407cb3fa$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> A planet doesn't have different gravity at different spots, therefore
there
> is no way that this will be considered.
> I suggest you learn some physics.
>
> "calhoun" <coen at charter.net> wrote in message
> news:407c80f6 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
>
|
Apr 14, 2004, 5:25am
Earth is a near sphere... AW dosent even have curvature...
- MR
"ferruccio"...
> Actually, there are gravity differences all over earth, but it's minimal.
[View Quote]> "starfleet" <Starfleet> wrote in message
|
Apr 14, 2004, 6:53am
[View Quote]strike rapier wrote:
> Earth is a near sphere... AW dosent even have curvature...
|
Oblate spheroid -- my teacher had a sexual desire for those or
something.. that's all he'd talk about.
Apr 14, 2004, 9:33am
Mark I think I know a way this could be done:
If gravity for current cell is blank then apply normal world gravity else
apply gravity for the cell..... i'll shut up
~John
[View Quote]"strike rapier" <strike at rapiercom.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:407c8925 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Thats an extra 8 bytes per cell, and thats like quarter of a GB for a
P3000
> and an extra 4GB for AW (if i worked it out right) for very little useful
> gain... having the plugin server change your gravity by setting
attributes
> in zones would be much more efficent and much more useful.
>
> - MR
>
> "calhoun" <coen at charter.net> wrote in message
> news:407c80f6 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
>
|
Apr 15, 2004, 4:34am
YAY!
[View Quote]"johnf" <johnf at 3d-reality.com.no-spam-please> wrote in message
news:407d1364 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Mark I think I know a way this could be done:
>
> If gravity for current cell is blank then apply normal world gravity else
> apply gravity for the cell..... i'll shut up
>
> ~John
>
> "strike rapier" <strike at rapiercom.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:407c8925 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> P3000
useful
> attributes
can
>
>
|
Apr 15, 2004, 10:55am
LOL
~John
[View Quote]"kol" <meowmix65 at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:407e1ed9$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> YAY!
>
> "johnf" <johnf at 3d-reality.com.no-spam-please> wrote in message
> news:407d1364 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
else
> useful
> can
>
>
|
Apr 16, 2004, 7:46pm
ya, well, like on earth, the higher the terrain, the more gravity there
should be.
-SWE
[View Quote]"strike rapier" <strike at rapiercom.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:407cd961 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Earth is a near sphere... AW dosent even have curvature...
>
> - MR
>
> "ferruccio"...
minimal.
>
>
|
Apr 17, 2004, 1:31am
Integrate the formula for a 2D circle... you will see that the gravitational
pull decreases as you get higher, thats because the shell outside you counts
for nothing, but anything below your height does count, and it only
increases at a higher rate than r^2 up to a certain point.
- MR
[View Quote]"swe" <swe at swe-e.com> wrote in message
news:4080460e at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> ya, well, like on earth, the higher the terrain, the more gravity there
> should be.
>
> -SWE
|
Apr 17, 2004, 2:04am
[View Quote]strike rapier wrote:
> Integrate the formula for a 2D circle... you will see that the gravitational
> pull decreases as you get higher, thats because the shell outside you counts
> for nothing, but anything below your height does count, and it only
> increases at a higher rate than r^2 up to a certain point.
|
I'd hope it'd get less as you get further away. There'll always be some
pull though.
Apr 17, 2004, 8:33am
The universe revolves around the Earth!
~John
[View Quote]"bowen" <newoB at sardna.ten> wrote in message
news:40809edb$2 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> strike rapier wrote:
gravitational
counts
>
> I'd hope it'd get less as you get further away. There'll always be some
> pull though.
|
Apr 17, 2004, 4:16pm
[View Quote]johnf wrote:
> The universe revolves around the Earth!
>
> ~John
|
Nah, the universe doesn't move -- our galaxy maybe.
Apr 17, 2004, 8:13pm
I thought the universe was moving outwards and away... or rather everything
in it?
~John
[View Quote]"bowen" <newoB at sardna.ten> wrote in message
news:4081665f$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> johnf wrote:
>
> Nah, the universe doesn't move -- our galaxy maybe.
|
Apr 17, 2004, 8:48pm
[View Quote]johnf wrote:
> I thought the universe was moving outwards and away... or rather everything
> in it?
|
How would it expand if it's everything?
Apr 19, 2004, 4:59pm
Dude: everything INSIDE the universe is moving away from everything else.
~John
[View Quote]"bowen" <newoB at sardna.ten> wrote in message
news:4081a61b at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> johnf wrote:
everything
>
> How would it expand if it's everything?
|
Apr 19, 2004, 5:29pm
[View Quote]johnf wrote:
> Dude: everything INSIDE the universe is moving away from everything else.
|
Gravity pulls everything together. Which has more power, gravity or the
expanding universe theory? We can prove gravity... I'm not so sure
about an expanding universe, neither is Stephen Hawking.
Apr 19, 2004, 9:30pm
In real time power the expanding universe, gravity has near negligable
effect on the outer permeters.
- MR
[View Quote]"bowen" <newoB at sardna.ten> wrote in message
news:40841a8b$2 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> johnf wrote:
else.
>
> Gravity pulls everything together. Which has more power, gravity or the
> expanding universe theory? We can prove gravity... I'm not so sure
> about an expanding universe, neither is Stephen Hawking.
|
Apr 20, 2004, 2:26am
[View Quote]strike rapier wrote:
> In real time power the expanding universe, gravity has near negligable
> effect on the outer permeters.
|
How do you know the universe is expanding or has a perimeter?
Apr 20, 2004, 8:38pm
Dopler shift, and it has no outer bounds, it curves back in due to space
time, so more time is created.
- MR
[View Quote]"bowen" <newoB at sardna.ten> wrote in message
news:40849872$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> strike rapier wrote:
>
> How do you know the universe is expanding or has a perimeter?
|
Apr 21, 2004, 2:09am
[View Quote]strike rapier wrote:
> Dopler shift, and it has no outer bounds, it curves back in due to space
> time, so more time is created.
|
Dopler shift is caused by the pull of planets. Red as it get closer,
blue as it gets further... I think.
You keep claiming theory for fact. How do you know time can be created?
How do you know space curves at it's edges? We _know_ there's some
sort of pull on molecules (gravity -- what it is exactly may still be
theory but we know it's there)... but as for the other stuff we have
absolutely no idea.
Apr 21, 2004, 2:17am
red shift. stars with the same elements going through fission are more red
than our star.
[View Quote]"bowen" <newoB at sardna.ten> wrote in message
news:40841a8b$2 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> johnf wrote:
else.
>
> Gravity pulls everything together. Which has more power, gravity or the
> expanding universe theory? We can prove gravity... I'm not so sure
> about an expanding universe, neither is Stephen Hawking.
|
Apr 21, 2004, 2:23am
The red shift has to do with the velocity in relation to your position of
objects around you. as objects move away, they get more red, and as they get
closer, they get more blue. if they aren't moving at all, then they appear
to be their normal color.
It's not like we have *no* idea about what's going on in the universe. We
have a few ideas about what is going on based on evidence we've recorded.
One theory is that the universe is expanding right now, and eventually the
constant gravitational pull will cancel out the expansion force, and start
pulling everything together, or "The Big Crunch." Another theory is that
the gravity will become too weak too quickly as the stellar objects expand,
so the universe will just keep expanding forever.
[View Quote]"bowen" <newoB at sardna.ten> wrote in message
news:4085e5f8 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> strike rapier wrote:
>
> Dopler shift is caused by the pull of planets. Red as it get closer,
> blue as it gets further... I think.
>
> You keep claiming theory for fact. How do you know time can be created?
> How do you know space curves at it's edges? We _know_ there's some
> sort of pull on molecules (gravity -- what it is exactly may still be
> theory but we know it's there)... but as for the other stuff we have
> absolutely no idea.
|
Apr 21, 2004, 4:58am
[View Quote]ferruccio wrote:
> The red shift has to do with the velocity in relation to your position of
> objects around you. as objects move away, they get more red, and as they get
> closer, they get more blue. if they aren't moving at all, then they appear
> to be their normal color.
> It's not like we have *no* idea about what's going on in the universe. We
> have a few ideas about what is going on based on evidence we've recorded.
> One theory is that the universe is expanding right now, and eventually the
> constant gravitational pull will cancel out the expansion force, and start
> pulling everything together, or "The Big Crunch." Another theory is that
> the gravity will become too weak too quickly as the stellar objects expand,
> so the universe will just keep expanding forever.
|
That's what it was, their position. It's a theory though, nonetheless.
Apr 21, 2004, 4:22pm
[View Quote]"bowen" <newoB at sardna.ten> wrote in message
> Dopler shift is caused by the pull of planets. Red as it get closer,
> blue as it gets further... I think.
|
Dopler shift is caused by the physical expansion of electromagnetic waves.
If you are in a boat and are traveling at 10cm s^-1 and you move your finger
from side to side in the water once every 1 second you map out a sin/cos
wave, that wave has a wavelength of 10cm in the water.
If the boat then accelerates until it is at 1m s^-1 and then rinse and
repeat repeat then the wavelength is now 100cm (1m). Using the formulae for
relating wavelength to frequency you then see how if an object is moving
quickly away from you its wavelength increases and frequency also decreases,
hence giving white light its red appearence.
Due to the nature of light speed being absolute if an object emmiting light
were moving at high speed towards you then the wave would be compressed,
shorter wavelength, higher frequency, blue shift.
Molecules are mainly effected by WNB [Weak Nuclear Force], SNB [Strong
Nuclear Force - Mega Mega Powerful], Gravity and Electric/Magnetic forces.
And time has to exist for the transfer of energy, because not all energy is
everywhere at once time must exist and be creatable.
- MR
Apr 21, 2004, 5:19pm
[View Quote]strike rapier wrote:
> "bowen" <newoB at sardna.ten> wrote in message
>
>
>
> Dopler shift is caused by the physical expansion of electromagnetic waves.
> If you are in a boat and are traveling at 10cm s^-1 and you move your finger
> from side to side in the water once every 1 second you map out a sin/cos
> wave, that wave has a wavelength of 10cm in the water.
>
> If the boat then accelerates until it is at 1m s^-1 and then rinse and
> repeat repeat then the wavelength is now 100cm (1m). Using the formulae for
> relating wavelength to frequency you then see how if an object is moving
> quickly away from you its wavelength increases and frequency also decreases,
> hence giving white light its red appearence.
>
> Due to the nature of light speed being absolute if an object emmiting light
> were moving at high speed towards you then the wave would be compressed,
> shorter wavelength, higher frequency, blue shift.
>
> Molecules are mainly effected by WNB [Weak Nuclear Force], SNB [Strong
> Nuclear Force - Mega Mega Powerful], Gravity and Electric/Magnetic forces.
>
> And time has to exist for the transfer of energy, because not all energy is
> everywhere at once time must exist and be creatable.
|
Nope. Unless you can prove time exists. I don't know why you're
trying, not even the most brilliant thinkers can prove it -- yet. In
order for existance to be true, everything that ever was or will be, has
to be now. Matter. Energy. Time. But, apparently you know more than
Einstein, Newton, and the rest. But again, these are all theories and
you're still trying to prove them as fact.
Apr 21, 2004, 7:19pm
Simple proof: You didnt know exactly what this message said as soon as you
saw I had posted it.
- MR
[View Quote]"bowen" <newoB at sardna.ten> wrote in message
news:4086bb18 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> strike rapier wrote:
waves.
finger
for
decreases,
light
forces.
is
>
> Nope. Unless you can prove time exists. I don't know why you're
> trying, not even the most brilliant thinkers can prove it -- yet. In
> order for existance to be true, everything that ever was or will be, has
> to be now. Matter. Energy. Time. But, apparently you know more than
> Einstein, Newton, and the rest. But again, these are all theories and
> you're still trying to prove them as fact.
|
|