next »

[oewarj]

If you are a PhD physics student, do you honestly think you would know about Newton's models more than Newton himself did?

The newtonian model still progressed after the death of Newton you know. "Newtonian physics" means the physics that doesn't account for the relationship of time/speed and space of the particle compared to the speed of light.

What would be the point in Einstein learning every little detail of Newton's models? He expanded upon a certain segment of them. He knew all of the intricacies of relativity, but I seriously doubt he would've bothered with every single detail of Newton's models, and how Newton derived them, etc. By developing the models, he, by necessity, must have had a much greater understanding of them.

To clarify, not only did Einstein derive Newtonian mathematics from within his own model, but his model explains stuff that Newtonian physics could not explain, like the orbit of Mercury. So yes, by completely comprehending his model, HE MUST HAVE CONTAINED NEWTONIAN. The only reason we don't use relativistic model absolutely everywhere is because the accuracy gained by the Relativistic model is miniscule compared to the demands of understanding it Edit: for the purpose of regular industry work.

You learn about a specific subset of the available knowledge regarding physics, and expand upon that small area. And then, maybe in the future, someone else will expand upon a further subset of your developments. They wouldn't bother learning about what you had to know in order to develop this, that would DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF USING  YOUR CONCLUSIONS.

You understand nothing.

[Tycho Brahe]

Einstein's general relativity is actually the foundation of many current predictions about planets and people ("people" in a physical sense).

So according to you, newtons laws of gravity mean nothing?

ie f= GMm/(r^2)

hmm?

Of course they mean something. It's just that Einstein's model helps predict things on a more accurate level than Newton's, so it's more useful. Just like Newton's model was more useful than Galileo's, Galileo's more useful than Aristotle's, etc.

the difference here is that Galileos's model DID NOT explain the movements of the planets; it was WRONG, and the same for Aristotle. It was only until a bloke called kepler came along that we could explain the motion of the planets. When newton came along years later, and came up with his model of gravity, it was shown that it fits with keplers. That's actually a question in a-level physics papers; derive keplers third law, from newtons laws, and galileo's laws of motion.

I mean I hate to say it, but this really should be obvious. :|

unfortunatly you are wrong. do you have any physics qualifications?

To clarify, not only did Einstein derive Newtonian mathematics from within his own model, but his model explains stuff that Newtonian physics could not explain, like the orbit of Mercury. So yes, by completely comprehending his model, HE MUST HAVE CONTAINED NEWTONIAN. The only reason we don't use relativistic model absolutely everywhere is because the accuracy gained by the Relativistic model is miniscule compared to the demands of understanding it Edit: for the purpose of regular industry work.

Thank you.

but yes, newton: large scale. einstein: small scale.

[gimymblert]

@Dragonmaw
If we should only listen to expert ... you are right

[DavidCaruso]

oewarj, I don't think he's saying Newton understood physics as a whole better than Einstein did, just that Newton understood his own models (models which, yes, are inferior to Einstein's) better than Einstein understood Newton's models and his thought process in creating them. Which should make sense, given how Newton was the creator of his model.

the difference here is that Galileos's model DID NOT explain the movements of the planets; it was WRONG, and the same for Aristotle. It was only until a bloke called kepler came along that we could explain the motion of the planets. When newton came along years later, and came up with his model of gravity, it was shown that it fits with keplers. That's actually a question in a-level physics papers; derive keplers third law, from newtons laws, and galileo's laws of motion.

Yes, but they were the best approximations at the time, just like Newton's approximations were the best we had until Einstein improved and added to them, and his were the best until quantum physics and string theory, etc.

unfortunatly you are wrong. do you have any physics qualifications?

No, but I don't think I'm arguing anything that takes extensive physics qualifications...all I'm saying is that our models of the universe improve iteratively over time and become more accurate (and therefore useful, in a general sense), like Einstein improved on Newton and Newton improved on Kepler, Aristotle, Galileo, etc, and that to ignore the models of the past and develop in a vacuum would be ignorant and lead to obviously flawed new models. Just like ignoring all past videogames and developing in a vacuum would lead to bad (although, yeah, "interesting") games.

[s0]

@Dragonmaw
If we should only listen to expert ... you are right

Very interesting, thank you. 

[shig]

If Icycalm is intending to accelerate his standards,

you probably meant "our" standards, right?

I would rather a game developer use "guidance" (if he must) from other game developers, not film directors.

videogames contain movies(LOOK P DIDDY IM ICYCALM), so it would make sense to have guidance from film directors depending on the occasion. just like writers and artists are hired all the time by game industries. or just like you need arithmetic, algebra and etc to tackle physics or statistics.

To me, outsider games are the most interesting because they are usually the most divergent in terms of mechanics. Iterative tend to be the most fun, as they learn from the mistakes of previous iterations. Reactionary tends to be the most thought-provoking, since they approach the same subject matter from a completely different angle. Each has its purpose, and each can be considered "good".

Doesn't "interesting" - in this context - mean the same thing as "thought-provoking"?

[Tycho Brahe]

No, but I don't think I'm arguing anything that takes extensive physics qualifications...all I'm saying is that our models of the universe improve iteratively over time and become more accurate (and therefore useful, in a general sense), like Einstein improved on Newton and Newton improved on Kepler, Aristotle, Galileo, etc, and that to ignore the models of the past and develop in a vacuum would be ignorant and lead to obviously flawed new models. Just like ignoring all past videogames and developing in a vacuum would lead to bad (although, yeah, "interesting") games.

Well it seems like I should have been vehemently agreeing with you  

but yeah, I agree, physics models improve iteratively over time, as new mathematics, or discoveries are made, or discovered.

I suppose you could apply this to game design, but I dont think it can be EXCLUSIVELY applied to game design, ie, game design can also be improved by randomly creating new stuff, the difference between iterative, and prototype design.

[oewarj]

unfortunatly you are wrong. do you have any physics qualifications?

 

oewarj, I don't think he's saying Newton understood physics as a whole better than Einstein did, just that Newton understood his own models (models which, yes, are inferior to Einstein's) better than Einstein understood Newton's models and his thought process in creating them. Which should make sense, given how Newton was the creator of his model.

You still aren't understanding it. You can derive the Newtonian model from the relativistic model. So if we are to say that Einstein completely understood his own model, then he completely understood Newtonian as well, because Newtonian physics is a subset of relativistic.

As for the rest, that's assuming that said mediums necessarily replace or "are higher than" the others. I would rather a game developer use "guidance" (if he must) from other game developers, not film directors. Likewise, I would rather a photographer seek guidance from other photographers. I know that you (and icycalm, and most of the people on insomnia) believe that certain art forms are above others (photography above painting, movies above photography, games above movies) but I don't.

"You can have influences from photography, but they are quickly exhausted. Whereas if you look at the history of painting, you have 25,000 to 30,000 years of recorded history of two dimensional art to study."

Which is what every CUTTING EDGE ARTIST tries to do, use GUIDANCE from history to cut down the learning time. Although I don't think he is cutting edge anymore.

[gimymblert]

This is ultimately a false debate.

Some people believe expert guidance is essential for maturing.
Some people believe it's optional, guidance is catalyst.

That's the same thing actually, you have better maturity with guidance for sure. But you also mature if can prove the expert wrong (which is essentially how we progress) and being a new expert ourselves.

But better maturing is not lack of maturity. Many art develop in parallel around the world and was equally complex with some area having more development than other.

[Tycho Brahe]

You still aren't understanding it. You can derive the Newtonian model from the relativistic model. So if we are to say that Einstein completely understood his own model, then he completely understood Newtonian as well, because Newtonian physics is a subset of relativistic.

The problem is, you can derive more or less anything from everything and anything. for example, you can derive keplers laws from newtons laws. That doesnt mean that newton 100% understood kepler.

[oewarj]

No you can't derive more or less anything from everything and anything. Does Kepler's laws contain Einstein? Don't be a retard.

It doesn't matter if Newton 100% understood Kepler the person. What matters is that he understood where he was right, as well as where the analysis fell short. Which is the same exact thing as understanding something.

[Dragonmaw]

I don't know why you guys are arguing about math and physics. Science is a fundamentally different realm than art. To simplify a complex position: science is there to make reality objective (laws of nature, etc), art is there to express subjective realities. They are so radically different that attempting to compare the two beyond a technical level (the physics of paint globs, the mathematics of sound distortion) is ridiculous.

Edit: That's not to say that the discovery of a scientific theory is not an act of creation, but that its intent is different. You develop a scientific theory to explain phenomena. You develop a game (or a painting, photograph, musical piece, movie) to express a particular subjective point, whether its emotional or simply "fun".

[DavidCaruso]

I suppose you could apply this to game design, but I dont think it can be EXCLUSIVELY applied to game design, ie, game design can also be improved by randomly creating new stuff, the difference between iterative, and prototype design.

I don't think "randomly" is really the right approach to take (at least, for cutting-edge game design). It's more about taking advantage of advances in hardware to make new and better game ideas a reality. The development of the RTS genre is a good example of this  - before the 16-bit era, processors weren't powerful enough to handle many opposing units, structures, resources, etc. all interacting with each other and displaying onscreen at the same time, but once the technology got there, the genre bloomed as the developers realized "hey, we can display all those sprites and make all those calculations now!" (starting with Herzog Zwei for the Genesis - though there were some precursors, but none nearly as advanced). Same with the first-person shooter genre - as the technology advanced from the 1980s, we were able to get simple fixed-height textured raycasting (Wolfenstein 3D), then more advanced variable-height walls and lighting effects (Doom), then fully polygonal graphics (Quake), and soon enough we'll have real-time raytracing (tech demo: Quake Wars: Ray Traced). And same with western RPGs - as the amount of space available expanded, so did player choice, now that programmers were able to implement a wealth of dialogue trees and artists were able to create increasingly immersive and detailed worlds.

[Tycho Brahe]

What I mean is, how was the first rts designed, how could that ureters from something.

I agree that it's pointless, which is what I said a page ago.

And also, you probably could derive einstein from newton. How else them, did einstein get there? One of the first things we did in my physics class, when learnig about newton, was derive him from Galileo. That's the same direction you're stating is impossible. You can derive anything from everything, you might just have to take a long route, that's all.

[oewarj]

 

Here: You can use the Theory of Relativity to explain Newtonian mechanics. What inside Newtonian mechanics explains the Theory of Relativity like Black Holes, time relativity due to speed/gravity etc.?

[Blademasterbobo]

@14113 He didn't say derive, he said contain. This is an incredibly stupid argument, it's almost entirely semantics.

[Tycho Brahe]

Nothing, but you can derive it. In the same way (like I said) that you can derive newton from Galileo.

@blademasterbobo
I'm not arguing against that, in agruing against his assertion that things can't be derived in two directions.

[oewarj]

Ok, then use "contains" when I said "derived/derive." Better now?

[Tycho Brahe]

Yeah, I guess. Could you better explain what you mean by "contains" though?

[Blademasterbobo]