Forodrim
-
Posts
113 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Forodrim
-
-
I know what a Sigma-notation is, but again I have never seen the effect of fast velocities calculated that way. So please post a source for that.
Stop text walling, but simply produce the first two iteration by hand.
m(2) = m(1) + [ F(1) / (a(1) + a(2)) ]
You add up accelerations? that is the acceleration of the first step + the acceleration of the second step? Where does a(2) come from? should it be a(0) + a (1)?
Again, I need source for that, if this is 5th grade stuff it should be easy for you to link to them.
I don't mean a source for summation, but for an example of how the calculate changing mass that way.
I showed how this is usually done, here you can see a bit more of it:
http://wwwex.physik.uni-ulm.de/lehre/gk1-2005-2006/node19.html#SECTION005310000000000000000
sadly in German, but the first graphs show how acceleration works when you get close to c.
Unless you can produce a source for your way, I assume you are wrong.
your claim => you need to provide source.
-
38 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
F= m*a assumes mass is a constant, and not subject to change. That's called "static" and Newtonian physics are called "classic model", Einstein proved "there is a relation between mass and how much it's accelerated changing its value".
Einstein proved there is a relation between mass and Energy. So for a moving object you have to take speed and mass into account in relation to c. Your mass changes when you move faster, that is called relativistic mass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity). I have never seem this been calculated with the recursive approach you did, that why I ask for sources.
I still feel that you recursive approach is missing some important parts and does not take this into account. So lets do numbers, take a ship
m(0)=1000kg, thruster put out a force if F(0)=100N, which will result in an acceleration of a(0)=10m/s^2
How does the first two or three iteration of your approach look like?
-
3 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
It's a(2) = F(1)/m(2) and it's m(2) = F(1)/a(1).
I just came back to this to see if I understand you correctly.
you start with
F(1)/m(1) to get a(1)
then you take that a(1)
and do
m(2) = F(1)/a(1)
?
Or how do you start? I want to do this with some starting numbers. What is given at the start ?
Lets do a few iterations manually ... -
1 minute ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
Also, are words hard? Cause you do fail to understand the so called "relativistic acceleration", is a function with a recursive value.so no source for your stuff, i guess that is an answer too.
Also you wrote quote: "human is found exposed to the vacuum of space it's a gambit of dying from flash freezing or EXPANDING LIKE A BALOOON until you pop."
This is plain wrong, now you try to wriggle out of this. this is weak and dishonest.
-
3 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
When you claimed a=a in a recursive function (which means you take a new iteration everytime you are nesting the function)
your equations make no sense at all. the thing is relativistic acceleration. the faster you go, the harder it becomes to further accelerate you, however this effect become only relevant if go close to c as the mass gain for slow speeds is negligible. I linked you the wiki article that describes this including the proper equations. Can I see some sources for your equations?
7 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:The thing you linked to only says "you will inflate after you die, as the released oxygen out of your blood will cause deoxygenated blood to go to the brain and unconsciousness to follow immediately", in other words "you'll die in your sleep if you find yourself in vacuum"
it says " you won’t freeze (or explode)" which is exactly what you claimed.
It also says: "This leads to a condition called hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation. Within 15 seconds, deoxygenated blood begins to be delivered to the brain, whereupon unconsciousness results. Data from animal experiments and training accidents suggest that an individual could survive at least another minute in a vacuum while unconscious, but not much longer"
So you will die from oxygen deprivation or, suffocation, which is exactly what I said. -
3 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
So, what you are saying is, tat if you yo uwere to drive your car, at 100 km/h and tin can hits you at 10 m/s, yoyu mean to tell me that the tin-can won't be bounced off?
no, show me where I said that. You seem to have serious problems to understand what I said.
4 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:Exposure in vacuum causing your body to inflate - or flash freeze, if you curl up -is the main lead for possible death in vacuum
nope
source:
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/space-human-body/Where are your sources?
-
19 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:
I apologize if i'm interrupting. But i'm going to talk about the game for just a minute if that's ok.
I think the OPs original suggestion had to do with constructs becoming more powerful the longer they are around.
That seems like a cool idea to me. And i don't see any reason why it couldn't fit into the way NQ plans to do "progression" currently.
What if the construct or even maybe individual elements progressed in the exact same way that players will? Would that be an acceptable topic of discussion to our supreme forum gatekeeper captaintwerkmotor?
Could we have your permission to talk about that?
thanks for trying to get back on track.
I don't think objects should become better as time progresses. I'd rather put all improvement in the hand of players characters.
Be it by skill increase or using better Tech in your ship etc.
Also just ignore Twerk, the forum will benefit from that (I know, I need to do that too.)
-
1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
You people do STATIC math. In static math, yes, that would be a = a, cause it's the same value a=a. But it's recursive. It's a(2) = F(1)/m(2) and it's m(2) = F(1)/a(1).
Then it's m(3) = F(1)/a(3) if you keep the same PUSH on your ship, you will end up getting less and less acceleration. This is called a recursion.No, just no. it is called relativistic acceleration and it is a bit more complicated than that (for starters -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity) and how about you show some of your sources about your stuff here ).
Also, as others have pointed out already, it only really matters if your velocity gets close to c
1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:Problem with the Cruise missiles is I do accept corrections when I am wrong - as I did in that thread.
So where are you admitting you were wrong about HEAT warheads, momentum as force and humans flash freezing/exploding in vacuum?
-
3 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
momentum is FORCE
nope, force is needed to change momentum.
in your example you are wildly mixing newtonian force and stuff like the weak force.3 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:a = F/(F/a)
=> a = F * (a/F)
=> a = a
=> shocking!
3 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:HEAT are shells
nope, HEAT is a type of warhead. Can be used as shell (fired by a tank (russian BK14 shell) for example) or a missile (TOW missile for example)
3 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:human is found exposed to the vacuum of space it's a gambit of dying from flash freezing or EXPANDING LIKE A BALOOON until you pop.
nope, not going to happen.
In space heat radiation is very limited, so you will not freeze. you will also not explode.
Death in space will occur by suffocation.
=> just in the other thread in which you claimed a modern carrier does fire cruise missiles you mostly have no idea what you are talking about but like to hear yourself talk
=> consider yourself ignored.
Edit: I will also start to report your posts since you continue to derail almost every discussion with your ramblings.- Atmosph3rik and Takao
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, Code24 said:
At the time, I didn’t know that the rune had been associated with neo-nazi groups. I’ve more recently become aware of this and anticipated that it could become an issue. Clearly, our intention is not to promote these groups or their ideologies in any way. In the end, we went with the logo because of the aesthetics and thought it evoked the shape of a starship as @Shockeray pointed out.
Thats perfectly fine with me, I just wanted to point out the clear similarity as it might cause issues for you. The logo might attract people you don't want to be part of your org.
-
3 hours ago, TheMasterArchitect said:
Really hope thats not the case
JC answered that in the "ask me anything" video:
- Anaximander and MookMcMook
-
2
-
35 minutes ago, Warden said:
Interestingly, every (present-day) higher German sergeant has that symbol (looks just like the rune) as rank thingie on the shoulders. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauptfeldwebel_(rank)
That is true, however the logo adds the little wings that are a later addition by nationalists and were not part of the original rune.
I also don't want to imply intend here, just want to point something out that might be problematic.
-
I think your logo is not very wisely chosen, the added "wings" to the rune make it look like the emblem of various German Nazi groups (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odal_(rune)#Germany ). The original Odal rune itself is also used by the American "National Socialist Movement"
-
1 minute ago, Takao said:
They where called "he" exactly because both where man (German precision at it's finest -.- ).
nope, we also call the ship "Die Bismarck"
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismarck_(Schiff,_1939) -
1 hour ago, Lethys said:
Only numbers will be accurate
This. if you want to sell me your ship, I want the hard numbers. You can call it what ever you want, I want numbers.
(for reference look at the Empyrion Steam Workshop where the Blueprints are available, the good ones give numbers: building materials, building time, weapons, cargo etc.)
-
7 hours ago, Lethys said:
Who? What?
-
On 02/11/2017 at 9:26 AM, NanoDot said:
I'm speculating here, but what are players going to do with the thousands of cubic meters of dirt they will need to clear to get to resource deposits that are at 500m or deeper underground ?
make a hill, put a strange construct on top and call it art
-
Wird Neu-Berlin einen funktionierenden Flughafen haben?
- Rafiki and MinerMax555
-
2
-
1 hour ago, Warden said:
Or maybe I mistake the dimensions that are already there, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't big enough yet.
The starter Planet has 50,862 claimable 1km2 tiles. I would think that is pretty huge.
-
1 minute ago, Lethys said:
as everyone will only start with (probably) a very basic sum of quanta you won't be able to sell much
people need to mine stuff themselves and sell it - otherwise they won't get money in the first place
yeah, thats true. Then I will probably stockpile it
-
It depends mostly on what we will be able to built from the start. Do we have the skills and materials to craft a weapon right away? What about a simple Vehicle (HV)?
I think I will try to get materials to built a basic storage inside the ark safe zone, then built a HV (or even a small atmo transporter) to venture out of the safe zone and haul stuff back to the storage. Then check what is needed to built a spacecraft and go from there, maybe sell stuff to the lazy
.
-
14 minutes ago, blazemonger said:
And then I take a relatively cheap PVE fitted VNI with fireworks to shoot at lootrobbers.. no need to get worked up and more relaxing an fun that way..
Funny, I started in EVE as a ninja looter
Even got a BS to start firing at me, of course he did not hit me and was quickly blown up by Concord. More sweet loot for me.
16 minutes ago, blazemonger said:I already have a design for a deep space explorer base ship with several smaller utility ships in the hangers to be built in DU. Me and my crew will just embark and be on our way, to see what's out there..
I plan something similar. not sure about the design, but goal is Deep Space Exploration as well. (already created this https://community.dualthegame.com/organization/gesellschaft-zur-erkundung-des-interstellaren-raum)
-
54 minutes ago, blazemonger said:
Many folk crying about this seem to reference experience in EVE and I'm willing to bet these are mostly Highsec Carebears who think that in EVE Highsec is safe.
Nah, I usually did Wormhole Hopping to get into Nullsec and hunt for relic and data sites there.
Well, we will see how the specifics will turn out in DU. I'm looking forward to how space fight will work with the DU flight mechanics.
An idea about construct vs construct
in Idea Box
Posted
I would argue that the incentive to keep it in one piece should:
- building a (large) new ship is difficult, as in it takes time and resources
- it works as it is
modern ship are also not kept in one piece because they get better over time and I think DU should aim for realism.