1  2  |   Order by index

Dec 16, 2003, 6:15pm

OBJECT GRAVITY

would be great you could do your create sticky thing with it by setting the
object to something like

create gravity 0 10 0 (X Y Z where 10 would be the highest you could set it
to)

or

create gravity 10 10 10 (for spherical objects to make kickass planets with
a spherical output)

you see what I am getting at here?

-C P

Dec 16, 2003, 6:53pm

GMm./r^2

You think Shamus could code could code that radially?!?!?! Ive gota bigger
chance of being able to integrate the damned thing.

- MR

[View Quote]

Dec 16, 2003, 7:12pm

[View Quote] > GMm./r^2
>
> You think Shamus could code could code that radially?!?!?! Ive gota bigger
> chance of being able to integrate the damned thing.

Well most people don't realize that gravity isn't a pull, but a bending
of space-time. So you have to simulate the bend (Which happens to be a
pull in most cases -- which is what we can best simulate). So basically
everything that's allowed would have to move towards that object. It
can be done... but it'd takes some seriuos testing and a completely
revamped physics engine. In AW's case I'm guessing it's going to be
processor intensive.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideajuice.
I am in no way a physicist. Any views on gravity I have may be proven
wrong in the future. As far as I've heard, Hawkings agrees with me at
this point in time.

Dec 16, 2003, 8:05pm

Technically accurate...

However it would require vector addition of every single object, including
in their move positions (kinda like the lighting commands) and it would have
to be updated every single frame as naturally, you will be pulled closer,
there would never ever be any standing still (unless you teleported to exact
coordinates between 2 opposing forces.

- MR

[View Quote]

Dec 16, 2003, 10:18pm

[View Quote] Well gravitational forces so minute are usually ignored. I think the
purpose was to allow for objects to "land" on other objects and for
people to be able to stand on moving objects... etc.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideajuice.

Dec 17, 2003, 12:22am

10... max gravity?.... "help i cant move.. im stuck to this object" that
is like more powerful then superglue

[View Quote] > OBJECT GRAVITY
>
> would be great you could do your create sticky thing with it by setting the
> object to something like
>
> create gravity 0 10 0 (X Y Z where 10 would be the highest you could set it
> to)
>
> or
>
> create gravity 10 10 10 (for spherical objects to make kickass planets with
> a spherical output)
>
> you see what I am getting at here?
>
> -C P
>
>

Dec 17, 2003, 1:00am

=0 you would have to assign weights to different avatars. for instance,
virgil would simply fall through objects with gravity on them, while other
avatars wouldn't
[View Quote]

Dec 17, 2003, 2:12am

Wow.. Bowen... didn't realize you wanted the Ideajuice that
bad hehehe

<hands Bowen some Ideajuice>

[View Quote]

Dec 17, 2003, 12:38pm

How is 10 considered strong or weak? There was no unit of measurement =
assigned or implied. Now compared to -9.8m/s/s, it would seem only a =
little heavy. But -32ft/s/s makes it seem unusally light.

Anyway, the force of gravity between two objects is proportional to =
their masses. So assigning the gravity's value makes no sense. We =
would simply use the known mass of the avatar and the known mass of the =
object. (Perhaps a density option could be used to increase the mass of =
an object. Blackholes anyone?)

Also note that we are pulled towards the Earth's core and not into the =
walls because the Earth's mass is several orders of magnitude greater =
than the building's. We cannot notice the effect the wall has on us. =
This is why we generalize gravity on Earth as a downwards (i.e. towards =
the core) pull using -9.8m/s/s (or -32ft/s/s) for all objects regardless =
of mass and elevation.

Now... per object attraction (or repulsion) could be useful for =
game-like worlds or just to keep people out of certain areas. But I =
would not recommend calling it "gravity."


[View Quote]

Dec 17, 2003, 4:32pm

Actually... because AW objects don't have a (visible) unit of friction
assigned to em, the frictional coefficent mew would be ziltch.. as a result
you would be able to move across any plane perpendicular to the
gravitational field... But wouldent be able to move up very quick...

- Mark R
PS: For those of you that are interested... Im making a rail gun for my
physics project (and calling it 'magnetic momentum'.. just so they let me do
it) and I just fired a 200g mass out of the end of it using a meager 20
volts... at 30 miles per hour... and the powerpack goes up to 5Kv


[View Quote]

Dec 18, 2003, 12:24am

Cool!

> - Mark R
> PS: For those of you that are interested... Im making a rail gun for my
> physics project (and calling it 'magnetic momentum'.. just so they let me
do
> it) and I just fired a 200g mass out of the end of it using a meager 20
> volts... at 30 miles per hour... and the powerpack goes up to 5Kv

Dec 18, 2003, 1:30am

[View Quote] > Actually... because AW objects don't have a (visible) unit of friction
> assigned to em, the frictional coefficent mew would be ziltch.. as a result
> you would be able to move across any plane perpendicular to the
> gravitational field... But wouldent be able to move up very quick...
>
> - Mark R
> PS: For those of you that are interested... Im making a rail gun for my
> physics project (and calling it 'magnetic momentum'.. just so they let me do
> it) and I just fired a 200g mass out of the end of it using a meager 20
> volts... at 30 miles per hour... and the powerpack goes up to 5Kv

True rail guns accelerate matter close to the speed of light. Well,
they're supposed to. People call things that use magnetic fields to
propel items rail guns.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideajuice.

Dec 18, 2003, 2:55am

A very nice railgun might propel a 2kg projectile at 4,000 m/s (and require
several million amps to fire).
Thats roughly 0.0013% of the speed of light.
(And railguns use magnetic fields too, just not the way people normally
think)

[View Quote]

Dec 18, 2003, 3:08am

[View Quote] > A very nice railgun might propel a 2kg projectile at 4,000 m/s (and require
> several million amps to fire).
> Thats roughly 0.0013% of the speed of light.
> (And railguns use magnetic fields too, just not the way people normally
> think)

Well, that's all well and dandy... but that's a magnetic accelerator and
not quite a railgun.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideajuice.

Dec 18, 2003, 4:11am

We're talking about a conducting slug being propelled between two rails,
right?
I could've sworn that was a railgun (And yes, magnetic fields are involved).

[View Quote]

Dec 18, 2003, 1:26pm

People call the round packaged food items served up by McDonalds
hamburgers.

It's not reality, but common useage that counts in language....

[View Quote]

Dec 18, 2003, 4:40pm

Well did another test today...

This time I used an set of 800 coil electromagnets in series... Accelerated
via 22 volts across each and timed switches... Few failed attempts...

Decided to try and remove the friction from the surface... so made a little
trolley type device outta something a bit like Lego, but actual design
quallity...

Results: Big hole in the dampener at the end... BIG hole....

- MR

Dec 18, 2003, 6:00pm

[View Quote] > People call the round packaged food items served up by McDonalds
> hamburgers.
>
> It's not reality, but common useage that counts in language....

Nonsequitor... ham is synonym for pork. When was the last time you ate
a hamburger out of pork? It does have cow meat in it, but it's not 100%
cow meat, no... the FDA allows 1 rathair, max, per chocolate candybar.
Maybe you should be more worried about that then, say, what composes the
protein you ingest at a fast food resturant. :P

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideajuice.

Dec 18, 2003, 6:03pm

[View Quote] > Well did another test today...
>
> This time I used an set of 800 coil electromagnets in series... Accelerated
> via 22 volts across each and timed switches... Few failed attempts...
>
> Decided to try and remove the friction from the surface... so made a little
> trolley type device outta something a bit like Lego, but actual design

LEGO's. I would've also accepted legos and LEGOs as the correct term.
The correct term is LEGO Bricks for the plural form, therefore, using a
proper contraction as defined in the British dialogue of English, LEGO's
is as close as possible to the original plural verb. Even LEGO would've
been more correct.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideajuice.

Dec 18, 2003, 7:32pm

Well I did only use one piece... therefore I am right, and your a twit :P

- MR

[View Quote]

Dec 18, 2003, 8:38pm

no neded to get complicated.. it just that C P said 10 is highest.. and
used 10 in the example.. which with almost no thinking at all i thaught
was maximum pull... but now i thaught about it, the highest setting does
not mean the most gavity.. the maximum setting can be any amount of
gravitational power.

[View Quote]

Dec 18, 2003, 8:47pm

people screw up enlish so much.. like your PIN. people write PIN# or say
PIN Number. that is not right, it would be saying Personal Idenification
Number Number. and LEGO, coke, and other stuff they screw up. coke is a
brand, not a type of drink, that will be cola or soda.

lol.. english is getting so modified in recent years.. that they wanted
to put Google in the dictionary (like "Google this word"), along with
Googling, Googled, etc.. but Google stop them (forgot which dictionary)

and i might be wrong about something.. and if i am try not to get
technical by posting 30 replies on correct usage.

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Dec 18, 2003, 10:54pm

[View Quote] http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif


--
-Agent1

Dec 18, 2003, 11:12pm

[View Quote] It follows rule one on the left side. What's your point? LEGO Bricks.
LEGO [Brick]s -- LEGO's. Ready!? Let's pronounce this, Le(g-o-s.
Hurray. Despite what you learned in your ass backwards areas, the
proper way is LEGO's. You are not pluralizing it simply because it ends
in a vowel, no, you're adding an apostrophe because you remove "Brick"
in the true plurarl. My hats off that you didn't realize that even
after I explained it. Let's pick apart why example one and two on the
left are correct, okay?

"The cat's out of the bag." Well... this is correct simply because the
contraction "cat's" is a combination of cat and is -- therefore making
it a proper contraction of the two words as an apostrophe has been added
in place of the missing letter(s). Tada, this is where my rule of the
plural of LEGO fits best.

"The cat's feet are out of the bag." Why is this one correct? Because
the cat is showing ownership to the feet. The ownership clause is also
another correct way to use an apostrophe. My rule on on pluralizing
LEGO does not fit all too well here.

"All of the cat's are out of the bag." Why is this wrong? Well,
simply, they used the apostrophe to denote the actual plural instead of
using it to replace the _WORD_ that is actual making LEGO's plural.
This is incorrect either way -- you would get 5 points off for even
suggesting that.

Well... in short, you didn't read my post this time and are way off. I
stated quite clearly that the apostrophe in LEGO's is to replace the
world "Brick," and is not actually making the word LEGO plural itself.
And thus, this follows example one, as I've stated.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideajuice.

Dec 18, 2003, 11:21pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] No, it doesn't.

> Despite what you learned in your ass backwards areas, the proper way is LEGO's.

If you mean that correct English is "ass backwards", then you can go right on
thinking that.

> You are not pluralizing it simply because it ends in a vowel, no, you're adding
> an apostrophe because you remove "Brick" in the true plurarl.

I don't know what you mean about that vowel part but it doesn't matter since
that is irrelevant to this discussion. You can't just remove a whole word and
create a non-standard contraction because you think it justifies your
*incorrect* use of the apostrophe.

> My hats

http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

--
-Agent1

Dec 19, 2003, 1:41am

[View Quote] I think it's funny you'll do anything to try and prove me wrong.
Unfortunately for you, this time it IS right. Their is no right and
wrong place you can use an apostrophe to replace a word as long as it
seems logical. You're not going to go Learned'n for learned in, of course.

>
>
> If you mean that correct English is "ass backwards", then you can go
> right on thinking that.

Whatever you say, you're obviously right because that's just you. You'd
stick a nail in your eye if you felt it would cure herpes just because
an enecylopedia said it would.

>
>
> I don't know what you mean about that vowel part but it doesn't matter
> since that is irrelevant to this discussion. You can't just remove a
> whole word and create a non-standard contraction because you think it
> justifies your *incorrect* use of the apostrophe.

Well, since your link obviously shows the only allowable apostrophe
rules -- it doesn't outright say it's incorrect. But you believe
everything you read on the internet, remember? Oh yeah, nail in the eye
too.. cures herpes. Encyclopedia1337.com says so.

But then again, http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/punct/apostrophe.html. I
can find sites that prove me right too:

"1. The apostrophe indicates that a number or a letter has been omitted:

it is = it’s
does not = doesn’t..."

Therefore, following this rule, LEGO's is a proper contraction, of the
word LEGO Bricks, by use of apostrophe. Go ahead... keep saying I'm
wrong like you always do. Both your link and my link agree with me.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideajuice.

Dec 19, 2003, 7:41am

: "1. The apostrophe indicates that a number or a letter has been =
omitted:
:=20
: it is =3D it=92s
: does not =3D doesn=92t..."
:=20
: Therefore, following this rule, LEGO's is a proper contraction, of the =

: word LEGO Bricks, by use of apostrophe. Go ahead... keep saying I'm=20
: wrong like you always do. Both your link and my link agree with me.

Hmm... you are somewhat right and somewhat wrong.

----

When you need to pluralize a letter, you do use an apostrophe:

- Make sure to dot your I's and cross your T's.

When you need to pluralize multiple letters, you do not need an =
apostrophe:

- The CDs are next to the DVDs.
- I learned my ABC's in school today.

Acronyms generally omit the apostrophe.
Sequences (i.e. ABC's, 123's) usually require it.
Be mindful of attribution and ownership. (The CD's cover.)

----

So, "LEGO's" is not a contraction of "LEGO bricks." (That's just =
silly.)
Rather, it is simlply an acceptable plural of LEGO.
Personally, I would use LEGOs before using LEGO's.


-- Serac

Dec 19, 2003, 7:44am

I remember making a potato cannon for Physics class.
Some PVC pipe and fittings plus some of that awful smelling glue stuff.
A flint lighter thingee from a lantern and some hairspray.
Optional laser sight plus hearty potatoes.

Wee!

P.S. Your project is much cooler though. ;-)


-- Serac

http://www.hillvisions.com/
[View Quote]

Dec 19, 2003, 7:40pm

[View Quote] I'm not doing "anything" to try to prove you wrong. I'm only making a couple of
newsgroup posts.

> Unfortunately for you, this time it IS right.

Nah.

> Their is no right and wrong place you can use an apostrophe to replace a word

"There".

> as long as it seems logical.

Your use in this case doesn't seem logical.

>You're not going to go Learned'n for learned in, of course.

That is exactly the kind of thing you're doing. Saying that "LEGO's" is instead
of "LEGO Bricks" is just as silly as the example you gave.

> Whatever you say, you're obviously right because that's just you.

I never said that I was perfect; just that in this case, you are wrong.

> You'd stick a nail in your eye if you felt it would cure herpes just because an enecylopedia said it would.

Nope. That would be stupid.

> But you believe everything you read on the internet, remember?

I don't see how posting one link that clearly show's you're incorrect is the
same as believing everything I read on the Internet. Your entertaining
explanation of how it is acceptable to use "LEGO's" is one example of why you
shouldn't believe everything you read.

> "1. The apostrophe indicates that a number or a letter has been omitted:

I never claimed that it didn't. I only said that your use of it was ludicrous
and non-standard at best.

> Therefore, following this rule, LEGO's is a proper contraction, of the
> word LEGO Bricks, by use of apostrophe.

No it isn't.

> Go ahead... keep saying I'm wrong like you always do.

You're wrong like you always are.


> Both your link and my link agree with me.

Nope. You never posted anything that backs up your elimination of all traces of
an entire word. Good luck next time, though!

--
-Agent1

Dec 20, 2003, 1:23am

You're missing the point by so much, you must be aiming that
way intentionally :-)

To the people in these newsgroups, Strikes description of a railgun
was perfectly acceptable.

I don't know and don't really care if the strict technical definition
of a railgun has something to do with the speed of light or not.

I knew what he meant, and so did probably everyone else on here
other than you, and that's what counts, and that's what my analogy
to hamburgers was about. It was only a non-sequitor to someone
who failed to grasp it's essential connection to the subject.

Unless you were prefacing your comment.. marking it as a non
sequitor. If that's what you meant.. then....

As far as what goes into the food goes, you don't need to educate
me about it. My father was a butcher and I used to visit the various
places he worked as a kid, and I have had the pleasure of touring
slaughterhouses, meat packing plants, 'rendering' plants and other
such places.

I just decided when I was that age I would never eat anything without
cooking the hell out of it.

[View Quote]

1  2  |   Order by index