[Lunick]

[Fox]

Members -> Groups -> Admin

There are 8 people there, who the heck are them?

[Kyanos]

tx, hendricks, yatta, plagman, mblackwell, tropper dan, green, and and micky?

http://forums.duke4....tats&do=leaders
I was close...

[Kristian Joensen]

A video of one of Atlantic Airways' Airbuses landing in the Faroe Islands https://www.youtube.....&v=J4aP1Jq48XU

[Gambini]

I´ve been thinking: Considering the infinite is, well, infinite. This means there are infinite probabilities of anything. Which means that everything is possible, even the fact that there are identical worlds to this one somewhere in the infinite. Probably infinite identical worlds and infinite variations of it. As such there´s another world somewhere where each of branch of events has its course in time. and furthermore, at different keyframes of the timeline. If you consider the butterfly effect and that there are odds of identically developed events which would lead to identical galaxies. Well... It sounds absurd but i actually can´t think of a way to refute this principle. I don´t know if it´s covered somewhere, it probably does.

So we can assume there are very very distant worlds where Duke Nukem Forever was released on 2001 or where The Axis won the 2nd world war. The only way i can think of it not being possible is that the universe is only infinite in time and space but the matter is finite. Share your opinions!

EDIT: I´ve been reading Einstein´s relativity theory after considering this, but it´s actually a much more practical set of equations rather than a theory with more abstract facts.

[Master Fibbles]

Sheldon Cooper gave up on String Theory, you should too.

[Forge]

this universe, as far as we can tell, is only so old and so big which makes it finite. we can only see objects 13.8 billion light years in any direction, if there's anything out past that, the light hasn't had time to reach us yet.
(observable big bang radiation can be detected at about 46.6 billion light years in any direction)

but who's to say this is the only universe. until edwin hubble noticed andromeda was a galaxy and not a nebula less than 100 years ago, we thought the milky way was it

[Gambini]

"the string theory" well that gives me something to read!

Quote

we can only see objects 13.8 billion light years in any direction, if there's anything out past that, the light hasn't had time to reach us yet.

I am such a casual thinker about these facts that i forget their unmeasurable inmensity. Our perception will always be finite, so we will never actually know what´s up to this big universe. We´re just very curious beings that want to know much more than what´s needed. But the "think then exist" is a motto to live by sometimes. Science is so wonderful if you look at it with the right mood. Can´t believe religions still exist. I wonder if future generations will find a way to explore the universe through better mediums than light. Compared to the infinite, light is a slow radiation that provides a very limited input.

[Kyanos]

String theory doesn't sit right with me, I like "particle wave duality" with a sprinkling of "electric universe"
Are we really naive enough to believe gravity pulls us down but holds the moon up?? Don't get me started on angular momentum, the world spins because the suns electromagnetic energy flows through us and spins the globe like a simple DC motor.

[High Treason]

80's micro's and Russia on the same page? How appropriate, and I pwn all of you, I have one of these.

Granted, what it clones is garbage, but the resourceful soviets added more advanced audio and graphics, more RAM and a built in kempston port not to mention RGB output (or I misread and the socket is in fact KGB uplink) - I love it, but I'll probably always be a C64 guy through and through, especially not if you like following the demoscene.

[Hank]

Drek, on 18 April 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

String theory doesn't sit right with me, I like "particle wave duality" with a sprinkling of "electric universe"
Are we really naive enough to believe gravity pulls us down but holds the moon up?? Don't get me started on angular momentum, the world spins because the suns electromagnetic energy flows through us and spins the globe like a simple DC motor.

If you go to school, and wanna be an enguneer type guy, you better use Newton's set of gravety mathes, otherwise you ain't gonna get no paper. And what is wrong with angelur moments? Works in Rollercosters, space station, food blender, throwings rockets around ....

[Fox]

The problem with the string theory is that it requires 9 additional dimensions for the math to work, which there is zero evidence of.

Gambini, on 18 April 2014 - 06:47 AM, said:

I´ve been thinking: Considering the infinite is, well, infinite. This means there are infinite probabilities of anything. Which means that everything is possible, even the fact that there are identical worlds to this one somewhere in the infinite. Probably infinite identical worlds and infinite variations of it. As such there´s another world somewhere where each of branch of events has its course in time. and furthermore, at different keyframes of the timeline. If you consider the butterfly effect and that there are odds of identically developed events which would lead to identical galaxies. Well... It sounds absurd but i actually can´t think of a way to refute this principle. I don´t know if it´s covered somewhere, it probably does.

Infinite prossibilities doesn't mean anything is possible. Regardless of circumstances, we are all subject to physics laws, which limits what can be done.

[Kyanos]

Hank, on 18 April 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

If you go to school, and wanna be an enguneer type guy, you better use Newton's set of gravety mathes, otherwise you ain't gonna get no paper. And what is wrong with angelur moments? Works in Rollercosters, space station, food blender, throwings rockets around ....

Precisely that, what works in rollercoasters doesn't explain planetary bodies. I can do the math, up spin down spin, valence electrons, orbits and rotation... Newton's gravitational equations don't add up to what we see happening in galaxies, or atoms. That's why scientists insert "Dark matter" into the universe. An unproven unseen unmeasurable solution to all the missing math pieces.

[Hank]

^ Yep, we don’t know what gravity is yet. Our modern priests are so quick to preach their scientific knowledge. Sample: Quantum Physics is right, it does not work with Einstein, therefore Einstein must be re-evaluated. No one questions the validity of quantum physics, especially when all perfissors says it’s so very right. So good luck finding an intelligent answer. We need another Einstein.

And need another bier, Eastern makes me thirsty ................

[Gambini]

Fox, on 18 April 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

The problem with the string theory is that it requires 9 additional dimensions for the math to work, which there is zero evidence of.


Infinite prossibilities doesn't mean anything is possible. Regardless of circumstances, we are all subject to physics laws, which limits what can be done.

I made a bad selection of words. I don´t mean "anything" is possible in the way that it´d break any of the laws that rule this universe. But yes within them. If it is possible that this galaxy exists, then is it possible that another identical one exists somewhere else, under the same cirscumstances. It is an infinitely remote possibilty, but considering the nature of the infinitum, events could be repeated following any pattern and in any amount of times.

[Fox]

If you are using Windows XP, Firefox will not have smooth fonts by default...

Quote

How to Enable ClearType

To use ClearType for screen fonts:

• Click Start, click Control Panel, click Appearance and Themes, and then click Display.
  
• On the Appearance tab, click Effects.
  
• Click to select the Use the following method to smooth edges of screen fonts check box, and then click ClearType in the list.

[Lunick]

[Mark]

Gambini, on 18 April 2014 - 06:47 AM, said:

I´ve been thinking: Considering the infinite is, well, infinite. This means there are infinite probabilities of anything. Which means that everything is possible, even the fact that there are identical worlds to this one somewhere in the infinite. Probably infinite identical worlds and infinite variations of it. As such there´s another world somewhere where each of branch of events has its course in time. and furthermore, at different keyframes of the timeline. If you consider the butterfly effect and that there are odds of identically developed events which would lead to identical galaxies. Well... It sounds absurd but i actually can´t think of a way to refute this principle. I don´t know if it´s covered somewhere, it probably does.

So we can assume there are very very distant worlds where Duke Nukem Forever was released on 2001 or where The Axis won the 2nd world war. The only way i can think of it not being possible is that the universe is only infinite in time and space but the matter is finite. Share your opinions!

EDIT: I´ve been reading Einstein´s relativity theory after considering this, but it´s actually a much more practical set of equations rather than a theory with more abstract facts.

All this was explained in the old TV show "Sliders"

[Fox]

http://vimeo.com/87098514

[Forge]

Drek, on 18 April 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

That's why scientists insert "Dark matter" into the universe. An unproven unseen unmeasurable solution to all the missing math pieces.

it's called a Higgs-boson (or Higgs-boson like particle) which has been detected and proven to exist.
we don't have the technology to go out and get dark matter to determine what kind of higgs-boson it is, or have the proper tools to view it in space other than observing light from distant galaxies refracting (gravitational lensing)around it. Yet.

if you want to chew on something try figuring out why the universe is still expanding - and supposedly accelerating

galaxy clusters in every direction are moving away from our galaxy cluster
traditional physics says the energy from the big bang should have been depleted by now.
the galaxy clusters can be moving away from ours, but should not still be accelerating

here's a fun one:
theoretically-
space can move faster than the speed of light
nothing in space can travel faster than the speed of light

the universe is 13.8 billion years old - because that's the oldest radiation that we can detect and the farthest object we can see
we are not at the center of the universe
we can detect visible objects 13.8 billion light years away in every direction
the visible universe from our vantage point is 27.6 billion light years across
at some point in time the material in the universe had to be traveling at twice the speed of light to get that far apart in that short amount of time
the radiation from the big bang is observable in every direction to be 46.6 billion lightyears out
from our vantage point the observable universe is 93.2 billion lightyears across
at some point in time space had to be traveling at 3.3768 times the speed of light

this is a fun one too:
the farther away a galaxy cluster is from ours the faster it's moving away from us
-i always thought someone was reading a chart upside down about this - if the light from the farther object is older, isn't that the speed it was traveling (red shift) all those billions of years ago?
going by the information from the para-listing above this makes more sense to me anyway - things were traveling alot faster the closer in time (farther back) you get towards the big bang

i find it odd that the universe sped up after the big bang, slowed way down, and is now speeding up again

[Lunick]

[Fox]

[Lunick]

http://www.ebay.com....tm/251508272621 Sealed Aliens Ate My Babysitter!

[ReaperMan]

Lunick, on 19 April 2014 - 01:33 AM, said:

http://www.ebay.com....tm/251508272621 Sealed Aliens Ate My Babysitter!

Ah, Ebay prices.... always asking too much.

[Komenja]

Time for a pop quiz! What killed the dinosaurs?

Duke Nukem, of course!

[High Treason]

Quote

Ah, Ebay prices.... always asking too much

Really? I got a good deal on eBay today though;

^The one I bought,click for a more generic image of better quality.

Sure, it was £185 after postage, but the equivalent Roland is over £2000 and doesn't sound as good.... I'd class this as a good price though undoubtedly part of this is due to the worthlessness of Casio equipment - people don't know what they are missing. Hopefully it arrives in good condition, it'll go nice with the other 80's gear I have.

Edit: What a great few days, stuff is going far too well... Plus, I just noticed that in a benchmarking list I contributed to I have the fastest 486SX-Class system... It plays Duke 3D too.

[MrBlackCat]

High Treason, on 19 April 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

[/size][/font][/color]<snip>
Edit: What a great few days, stuff is going far too well... Plus, I just noticed that in a benchmarking list I contributed to I have the fastest 486SX-Class system... It plays Duke 3D too.

What is it? If you don't mind? I am going to take a guess at Cyrix Processor and depending on the range and type of benchmarks, it has PCI Bus? I say this because that was my experience back in the day. Some argued that Cyrix stuff was targeted at doing well on the Benchmark software and not so in real world... but anyway, I would like to know.


MrBlackCat

[High Treason]

UMC U5S-Super40, unusually quick processor, has an L1 cache. I did try using a Cx487S FPU with it but it doesn't work, presumably the CPU and/or mobo are not compatible.

It's only the fastest by 0.03 FPS total, but here are the specs;
U5S-Super40 CPU
16MB FPD RAM
STB LightSpeed TSeng ET4000W32/p on VL-BUS, 2MB interleaved RAM.
A BIOS from another version of the motherboard that lets me mess with wait-states.
Aquarius MB-4DUVC motherboard on the UM8498F chipset. Mostly parts from trash cans.

And I was up against a machine with the same CPU (Labelled U5SX but performance was identical between the U5SX-40 and U5S-Super40 I tried), a Biostar 8433UUD sporting a UM8886F chipset with a hacked BIOS, plus PCI that has a Trio64V+ stuck in it, also 2MB. Otherwise mostly identical it seems.

Might be able to pull some more performance out of mine if I fiddle with the cache a little. I could always cheat and drop the AMD-X5-ADZ in there with the BUS set to 40MHz (Yields 160MHz, 200 cannot be reached with the 50MHz setting and divisors offset the BUS clock drop) but I don't want to do that.

[MrBlackCat]

High Treason, on 19 April 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

UMC U5S-Super40, unusually quick processor, has an L1 cache. I did try using a Cx487S FPU with it but it doesn't work, presumably the CPU and/or mobo are not compatible.

It's only the fastest by 0.03 FPS total, but here are the specs;
U5S-Super40 CPU
16MB FPD RAM
STB LightSpeed TSeng ET4000W32/p on VL-BUS, 2MB interleaved RAM.
A BIOS from another version of the motherboard that lets me mess with wait-states.
Aquarius MB-4DUVC motherboard on the UM8498F chipset. Mostly parts from trash cans.

And I was up against a machine with the same CPU (Labelled U5SX but performance was identical between the U5SX-40 and U5S-Super40 I tried), a Biostar 8433UUD sporting a UM8886F chipset with a hacked BIOS, plus PCI that has a Trio64V+ stuck in it, also 2MB. Otherwise mostly identical it seems.

Might be able to pull some more performance out of mine if I fiddle with the cache a little. I could always cheat and drop the AMD-X5-ADZ in there with the BUS set to 40MHz (Yields 160MHz, 200 cannot be reached with the 50MHz setting and divisors offset the BUS clock drop) but I don't want to do that.

Dang... UMC! I didn't realize they were up there (in speed) like that. You are quite above my skill level in tweaking for sure. Honestly, I only encountered them in the field in obscure workstations. In the companies I worked for I only ever saw Intel, AMD and Cyrix processors through the i80586 days. Beyond that I have not built or handled enough PC Hardware to have an opinion.

Maybe I can ask your help when I start rebuilding my PC's for the new game room. Got a lot of parts/junk yard for PC's from the 90's. Re-building my gaming PC LAN (DOS) and cutting back to five pre-windows PC's.

Thanks for sharing the information... While I am no longer in the field of PC Building, I can at least understand what you are typing about. : D I still have my late 90's PC Hardware Bible also. Excellent publications for the time.

MrBlackCat

[Lunick]