Return to “Announcements”

Re: Development Update #21

#211
Zero isn't the centre to the number line, though. It's a demarcation for the transition from negative to positive. There are just as many numbers less than 5 as there are less than 0, and just as many numbers greater.

That's like saying the Earth's surface has a centre at the equator, or at the poles.
Chan.JENI
You’ve found our frequency,
Now check out our data mine!
8675309


Jafo Entertainment & News, Inc.
Offices on major planets soon to be abandoned in favor of orbital facilities with better defenses.

Re: Development Update #21

#212
Kichae Chandramani wrote:Zero isn't the centre to the number line, though. It's a demarcation for the transition from negative to positive. There are just as many numbers less than 5 as there are less than 0, and just as many numbers greater.
That was kinda my point. Zero is labelled as the centre of the number line (at least mathematically, each number being represented by its displacement from 0, "the origin"), and yet it is equally as far from either end as any other number.

Without a label to say "this is the centre", there is no way of identifying that point from any other point on the line.
Games I like, in order of how much I like them.

Re: Development Update #21

#214
Yeah, if you need a label it's not the centre. Labels are arbitrary. The origin is a point of interest, but it's no centre. You can move the origin simply by adding or subtracting a constant from the number line.
Chan.JENI
You’ve found our frequency,
Now check out our data mine!
8675309


Jafo Entertainment & News, Inc.
Offices on major planets soon to be abandoned in favor of orbital facilities with better defenses.

Re: Development Update #21

#216
I've enjoying reading this, even if Dinosawer is sure I don't really understand physics. ;)

Two questions do come to mind, though:

1. Where does this leave Einstein's certainty that a statistical universe opens the door to what he called "spooky actions at a distance?"

2. What do the recent BICEP2 findings do to this picture of reality? (Assuming those results can be verified.)

Also, given the game we're here to talk about, did this (other than the "shrinking" part) sound familiar to anyone else?
Kichae Chandramani wrote:... Relativity Theory predicts that the universe has no edges and no centre. It predicts that space can, and does, grow or shrink depending on what can be found in that space. Finally, it predicts that "the Big Bang" happened everywhere, simultaneously, and that it continues to this very day (just at a slower rate; this was discovered in the 1930s by Edwin Hubble). It also strongly suggests that the universe is, in fact, infinite in extent.
Hmmm. The initial universe in LT comes into being everywhere, simultaneously, and almost (but not quite) instantly. At any moment in time it has a real "edge," but it can expand (theoretically) infinitely though at a slower rate than the initial expansion.

Our universe is procedurally generated? :D

Re: Development Update #21

#218
Anyway
Flatfingers wrote: 1. Where does this leave Einstein's certainty that a statistical universe opens the door to what he called "spooky actions at a distance?"
Wasn't that about quantum entanglement? That's been proven to be true though (quantum entanglement works faster than light)
Flatfingers wrote: Hmmm. The initial universe in LT comes into being everywhere, simultaneously, and almost (but not quite) instantly. At any moment in time it has a real "edge," but it can expand (theoretically) infinitely though at a slower rate than the initial expansion.
Our universe is procedurally generated? :D
It's a fun thing but it's not the same kind of expanding ;) In our universe expansion means existing stuff gets further apart.
HOWEVER: you're still right, but because of something else: the finite lightspeed! As times goes on, the observable universe expands because light from further away places reaches us.
As long as we can't observe those places, in some way they don't exist for us... :think:
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image

Re: Development Update #21

#219
Dinosawer wrote:
Flatfingers wrote:Where does this leave Einstein's certainty that a statistical universe opens the door to what he called "spooky actions at a distance?"
Wasn't that about quantum entanglement? That's been proven to be true though (quantum entanglement works faster than light)
Heh. Non-locality was the first thing I thought of after the initial announcement of QE. :)

I don't get out much.
Dinosawer wrote:
Flatfingers wrote:The initial universe in LT comes into being everywhere, simultaneously, and almost (but not quite) instantly. At any moment in time it has a real "edge," but it can expand (theoretically) infinitely though at a slower rate than the initial expansion. Our universe is procedurally generated? :D
It's a fun thing but it's not the same kind of expanding ;) In our universe expansion means existing stuff gets further apart.
Yes, that's true. I seem to have this hazy memory of someone named Hubble saying something amazingly similar....

I wasn't seriously suggesting an exact identity between our universe and LT -- just noting some entertaining parallels that might be fun to consider.

Actually, because "normal" space in LT is non-contiguous and connected only by wormholes, it's notionally possible that all normal spaces in LT are moving away from each other as well. We just wouldn't notice since wormhole travel time between systems will (I'm guessing) be short and about equal between all systems.

All just speculation for entertainment purposes, of course.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron