[QUOTE=zeppelinfan2k3]Throw an apple up and see if it falls back down. :p

/this isn't philosophy :-\[/QUOTE]

Yeah but I mean. Basing temporal curvature on an imaginary force that doesn't follow the patterns of about 2 or 3 basical physical formulas isn't something I find reliable. You see an apple falling but to be sure temporal curvature is possible you need to know why it falls, and scientists can't actually explain that.

I read that I just wrote and it makes no sense but it's hard to explain it in english...

I get so motivated...

[QUOTE=albert_bass]Yeah but I mean. Basing temporal curvature on an imaginary force that doesn't follow the patterns of about 2 or 3 basical physical formulas isn't something I find reliable. You see an apple falling but to be sure temporal curvature is possible you need to know why it falls, and scientists can't actually explain that.

I read that I just wrote and it makes no sense but it's hard to explain it in english...[/QUOTE]
We can't explain why mass attracts mass, or positive attracts negative, but the fact that they do so is enough empirical evidence to base theories and hypotheses on. If empiricism wasn't an accepted form of proof, we'd still be studying why 1+1=2.

But Vince, what I mean is that to explain time curvature, they base all their hypothesis in something they don't know for sure. Of course it's empirical evidence that things fall, but Newton based his formulas which he later saw worked in some hypothesis which aren't correct, same hypothesis where those other scientist are basing all their theories. If the first wasn't correct, those others have less chances to be. Of course the fact that an apple falls is empirical evidence but why does it fall is the thing where they base more complicated theories and this base, is wrong, or at least, incorrect.

Newton's work is applicable for almost all physics work. It's only useless at speeds near the speed of light, where Einstein's theories appear more applicable, or on a sub-atomic level, but these are only inconsistencies we discovered hundreds of years later. Eventually we'll have the correct answer, but it's rather naive to reject the bes current idea just because it might be wrong. Everything we've done might be wrong but we haven't discovered it yet. Even so the theories work for now, so why not use them?

[QUOTE=albert_bass]But Vince, what I mean is that to explain time curvature, they base all their hypothesis in something they don't know for sure. Of course it's empirical evidence that things fall, but Newton based his formulas which he later saw worked in some hypothesis which aren't correct, same hypothesis where those other scientist are basing all their theories. If the first wasn't correct, those others have less chances to be. Of course the fact that an apple falls is empirical evidence but why does it fall is the thing where they base more complicated theories and this base, is wrong, or at least, incorrect.[/QUOTE]
Ohhh, look at you and all your big fancie words.

You know more english then me :upset: Actully, i lie i know all them words but i find it amazing that you can actully type english better then me.

[QUOTE=zeppelinfan2k3]Newton's work is applicable for almost all physics work. It's only useless at speeds near the speed of light, where Einstein's theories appear more applicable, or on a sub-atomic level, but these are only inconsistencies we discovered hundreds of years later. Eventually we'll have the correct answer, but it's rather naive to reject the bes current idea just because it might be wrong. Everything we've done might be wrong but we haven't discovered it yet. Even so the theories work for now, so why not use them?[/QUOTE]

Nah, the NASA uses Kepler's formulas for all their projects because they're not too keen on what Newton *cough*"discovered" and I say cough because he just took an old formula and made an equivalence with the oh-so-called work formula, ya know W=t*d

[QUOTE=Untitled]Ohhh, look at you and all your big fancie words.

You know more english then me :upset: Actully, i lie i know all them words but i find it amazing that you can actully type english better then me.[/QUOTE]

Haha thanks Butler <3

Gorilla Biscuits Live Stream!

Can someone explain to me why graphics on films like Toy Story or The Matrix, cost so much money to make?

Why are we talking about a whole bunch of nothing :upset:

[QUOTE=ChodaBoy]Can someone explain to me why graphics on films like Toy Story or The Matrix, cost so much money to make?[/QUOTE]

Because you suck.

[QUOTE=ChodaBoy]Can someone explain to me why graphics on films like Toy Story or The Matrix, cost so much money to make?[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing it takes lots of people to get it looking that good, therefore it costs in Labour.

[QUOTE=ChodaBoy]Can someone explain to me why graphics on films like Toy Story or The Matrix, cost so much money to make?[/QUOTE]
All the technology and ****. the ammount of time it takes, stuff like that. If you think that Adobe photoshop costs around £300, you can see why thats costly...

[QUOTE=Untitled]All the technology and ****. the ammount of time it takes, stuff like that. If you think that Adobe photoshop costs around £300, you can see why thats costly...[/QUOTE]

They do that with photoshop?!!?! :amaze:

Yeah, but these films cost millions to make - without the overcharging from the actors

Didn't that woman's hair in Final Fantasy cost something like $30,000?

[QUOTE=albert_bass]They do that with photoshop?!!?! :amaze:[/QUOTE]
Noo. im just comparing, photoshop is pretty darn simple compared to the things they use, and if its £300 for simple photoshop, then it can mount up for more complex things. Also those movies Adam mentioned are kinda pionires in the graphics world, so it would of cost millions reasearching and developing that technology to be used on them.

[QUOTE=ChodaBoy]Yeah, but these films cost millions to make - without the overcharging from the actors[/QUOTE]

If you really wanna know they do special effects just like Butler said but with obviously much more expensive programs. Add to that the money they pay to the designers, programmers, engineers and all that crap, plus some other effects inculding explosions, make-up, rent of parts of cities, I don't know a bunch of things...

[QUOTE=Untitled]Noo. im just comparing, photoshop is pretty darn simple compared to the things they use, and if its £300 for simple photoshop, then it can mount up for more complex things. Also those movies Adam mentioned are kinda pionires in the graphics world, so it would of cost millions reasearching and developing that technology to be used on them.[/QUOTE]

I knowww I was joking :wave:

[QUOTE=poprocks&coke]Didn't that woman's hair in Final Fantasy cost something like $30,000?[/QUOTE]
To make hair would be pretty hard and expensive. On a women im gonna presume its long, and with long hair, it moves every time you head does, so they would have to be able to make it look like it moves real and stuff like that. And also, what they tend to do now, is do each hair 1 by 1, programing them all. They did that with that big blue furry thing on Monsters Inc. I saw a program on it.

I'm saying $30,000 isn't that much, if you knew the work it takes to make that you'd probably be surprised.

sup thread

:eek:


I love Sulley :D

[QUOTE=Dookie56]sup thread[/QUOTE]

Yo Dook.

i went shopping for school clothes today

Sup Dookie.

i hate shopping

I think im pregnant. I have these weird feelings around my stomach area...

...Love!?

aren't you a dude?

[QUOTE=ChodaBoy]I think im pregnant. I have these weird feelings around my stomach area...

...Love!?[/QUOTE]

:eek:

Adam has feelings.

[quote=Dooku]aren't you a dude?[/quote]
Depends what day of the week it is