>>Hehe.. I would be worried about the "lossless" part of the compression algorithm.
See Prelude's compression algo
"Oops. The universe seems to have been sucked into a blackhole and crushed to the size of a carbon atom."
>>Hehe.. I would be worried about the "lossless" part of the compression algorithm.
See Prelude's compression algo
"Oops. The universe seems to have been sucked into a blackhole and crushed to the size of a carbon atom."
Just Google It. √
(\ /)
( . .)
c(")(") This is bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
So is anyone going to do this, or at least attempt to do this?
>>So is anyone going to do this, or at least attempt to do this?
Not unless you give us the money to build a supersupersupersupercomputer out of all possible harvestable resources on Earth..
Just Google It. √
(\ /)
( . .)
c(")(") This is bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
ok lets see. Maybe just a sloar system then? Or is this idea just given up all to gether? It sounds like a great idea!
well create people, create! I want to see something truly amazing from you!
some entropy with that sink? entropysink.com
there are two cardinal sins from which all others spring: Impatience and Laziness. - franz kafka
>>>>>>>>****UPDATE****<<<<<<<<<<<
I have read all of your responses. A few things I want to say.
Is there such a thing as a de-compiler?
The universe would work by setting some simple variables, like amount of matter, energy, and space, etc. Then the program would (in accellerated time) simulate the progress of the universe. Everything that has been discovered that uses mathematical equations will be used.
I am not sure what your source code means, whoever it was that told me about Planck's constant and all that. I am somewhat familiar with quantum theory, and general relativity. (I figured that if arrays can move into multiple dimensions, like time). Energy units can be set into photons, gluons, and h bosons, and gravity could follow general relativity. The basic idea behind all of this is that if all known theories are used, then it may be an invaluable resource to the discovery of the Grand Unified Field Theory.
Also, I have found something called Celestia, it is similar to this idea, except that it doesn't include forces.
Check it out and tell me what you think:
www.shatters.net/celestia
Feel free to contact me at: [email protected]
I appreciate any help anyone can offer.
>>Is there such a thing as a de-compiler?
Yes, though generally not very useful.
Very nice. I like itCheck it out and tell me what you think:
www.shatters.net/celestia
>>I appreciate any help anyone can offer.
Sorry. Can't offer anything there.
Just Google It. √
(\ /)
( . .)
c(")(") This is bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
There are simulations like this that are used for research (particularly the testing of theories, obviously -- make a universe, if it looks like the one we have [roughly], then it is at least, viable). You have way too broad a problem to work with there. Try narrowing it down. An n-body simulation is a good start (modeling planets, or charged particles in EM fields), as it deals only with forces on particles. There is a lot that goes into making a good n-body simulation (though, relatively poor ones can be made in a matter of minutes). But there is no way you can simply simulate everything, especially when not everything is understood.
If it were up to you guys we would never have any space games. Get real.
Yes it is possible to simulate a universe. No it's not possible to create an infinite real-time universe that we can relate to because for one we don't even have all of the information required to create even a small star system.
All these things can be simulated with finite data sets. It's amazing how much realism you can get with a set number of variables.
As for memory constraints that is quite simple to overcome. You only load in what you need and cache the rest. Essentially you only need to calculate changes on objects that are not seen. For instance say a planet is not in the current system. All you must do is track its rotational velocity vectors both in model space and world space and then when you get close to the planet, update the rotation matrix based on the accumulated information. But who really cares if the thing is rotating if you can't see it? Best bet is to simply leave it alone.
I'm tackling this problem in my current project and there are certain variables that are not worth updating if you are not around to see the results. Who cares if a tree is falling right now in a forest somewhere? I'm here, I'll never see it, hear it, or know about it...till perhaps when I go walking through the forest and see the result - IF i ever walk through the forest where the tree fell.
Elimination of unnecessary data sets is the key to having a living thriving universe in any game. If it's not near you then it doesn't matter. What you need to concentrate on is getting the stuff that's near you to act and look right to the best of your ability. Then the illusion is there that it is a living breathing universe.
Realist...
Just Google It. √
(\ /)
( . .)
c(")(") This is bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
<<<<<<YET ANOTHER UPDATE>>>>>>>
What I'm talking about is writing a C++ program that sets specific variables in a "universe", (forces, amount of matter and energy, etc.), with actual laws of physics, so instead of dealing with planets, it allows treats matter as it is in the real universe. All I really want to know is if there is a program that can use codes written in C++ to create all this in a "real" environment, and have it be in accelerated time or something. Similar to "celestia".
The whole idea of this is to create an "alternate universe" in a computer, run it in accelerated time, and see if it turns out like ours. If it does, then science will have found the sacred Grand Unified Theory. If not, adjustments can be made.
>>create an "alternate universe" in a computer, run it in accelerated time, and see if it turns out like ours.
Oh. Well, that might be difficult. If you really want to prove anything, you need 100% accuracy on all 'known' subjects right? It's hard to simulate that when the universe seems to work on a particle-by-particle basis, and you can never be 100% sure if an approximation you make will throw the result off or not.
Just Google It. √
(\ /)
( . .)
c(")(") This is bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/09/04.html
Here is some information on what has been done so far to simulate the universe. It took a super computer with 4.2 teraflops/sec speed to calculate it.
"Knowledge is proud that she knows so much; Wisdom is humble that she knows no more."
-- Cowper
Operating Systems=Slackware Linux 9.1,Windows 98/Xp
Compilers=gcc 3.2.3, Visual C++ 6.0, DevC++(Mingw)
You may teach a person from now until doom's day, but that person will only know what he learns himself.
Now I know what doesn't work.
A problem is understood by solving it, not by pondering it.
For a bit of humor check out xkcd web comic http://xkcd.com/235/
well store in on hdd,
and when the user wants to access that area, load it on a memory
making a virtual universe is simple, but time consuming. I am sure NASA has a virtual universe which keeps expanding as they discover new celestial bodies.
Games Reviews Previews Desktop Themes Downloads Paintball Forums Shareware Freeware and much more
The best in Technology and Gaming News
www.back2games.com
I know there has been some work done at LANL with this sort of thing. But again, the programs have much more defined goals.