4D - The next big thing? People have sucessfully made 4-Dimensional Geometry
3 / 3
While we can't make a screen that displays 4D (well maybe we could, but we still wouldn't be able to see it), I'd be interested in rasterizing 4D arrays onto a 3D screen, much the same way that on normal 2D screens we rasterize 3D onto a 2D screen. I bet it would look funky...
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='12 December 2011 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1323715501' post='1341291']
Many scientists agree on time being #4, and I'm among those in agreement. We could go significantly deeper down this rabbit hole, but it begins to look both incredibly religious and incredibly hippie-ish simultaneously if you aren't keeping up with the mathematical constructs.
[/quote]
The concept of the forth dimension being time is called Spacetime (or Minkowski space) and pretty much every reputable scientist actually sees it as valid because it's essentially required to understand e=mc². That doesn't make euclidean space invalid either, they're not mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe string theory relies on Euclidean space.
Off-topic: I'm not sure that all of this is completely right but if anyone is interested about e=mc² and the 4th dimension as spacetime explains it, I'll try to explain a bit of it. So, c is the speed of light, the universal constant, however it can also be seen as the default speed of time. I should explain that since time is a dimension, that means you can measure it as a distance and can therefore have "speed". So, if time is the forth dimension, right now, we are speeding through spacetime at the speed of light and always exactly the speed of light. If we move very fast through the normal 3 dimensions (I'm talking a good fraction of c), in order to still be moving through spacetime at the speed of light, we have to go through time slower. Which explains the time dilation effect that we've actually been able to measure in fast moving objects (GPS satelites actually have to adjust for this effect). And that's all I know about e=mc²... I read a book called "Why does e=mc²" a while back, it was actually pretty good.  Â
While we can't make a screen that displays 4D (well maybe we could, but we still wouldn't be able to see it), I'd be interested in rasterizing 4D arrays onto a 3D screen, much the same way that on normal 2D screens we rasterize 3D onto a 2D screen. I bet it would look funky...
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='12 December 2011 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1323715501' post='1341291']
Many scientists agree on time being #4, and I'm among those in agreement. We could go significantly deeper down this rabbit hole, but it begins to look both incredibly religious and incredibly hippie-ish simultaneously if you aren't keeping up with the mathematical constructs.
The concept of the forth dimension being time is called Spacetime (or Minkowski space) and pretty much every reputable scientist actually sees it as valid because it's essentially required to understand e=mc². That doesn't make euclidean space invalid either, they're not mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe string theory relies on Euclidean space.
Off-topic: I'm not sure that all of this is completely right but if anyone is interested about e=mc² and the 4th dimension as spacetime explains it, I'll try to explain a bit of it. So, c is the speed of light, the universal constant, however it can also be seen as the default speed of time. I should explain that since time is a dimension, that means you can measure it as a distance and can therefore have "speed". So, if time is the forth dimension, right now, we are speeding through spacetime at the speed of light and always exactly the speed of light. If we move very fast through the normal 3 dimensions (I'm talking a good fraction of c), in order to still be moving through spacetime at the speed of light, we have to go through time slower. Which explains the time dilation effect that we've actually been able to measure in fast moving objects (GPS satelites actually have to adjust for this effect). And that's all I know about e=mc²... I read a book called "Why does e=mc²" a while back, it was actually pretty good.  Â
This is so not interesting.. 3d to 4d.. what the hell.. when can we get proper virtual reality play like the ones in matrix movie without having a plug in hole in back of your head? I wanna feel the pain and pleasure while interacting with real human or monster-like virtual being in game, not mere visual effects. :(
This is so not interesting.. 3d to 4d.. what the hell.. when can we get proper virtual reality play like the ones in matrix movie without having a plug in hole in back of your head? I wanna feel the pain and pleasure while interacting with real human or monster-like virtual being in game, not mere visual effects. :(
[quote name='Moggle69' date='12 December 2011 - 07:18 AM' timestamp='1323674327' post='1341057']
VR is going to be the next big thing in gaming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni-QFyfZ8rY&feature=player_embedded
[/quote]
Twin high-resolution 852 x 480 LCD displays ??
I prefer my 2560x1600 30" monitor or my 1920x1080 240hz 55" 3d tv...
Id say full body motion is a big missing element now. I really want a simbolrides chair but they dont seem to be making them. Also really hi FOV wraparound VR glasses with Headtracking would do me for a long while, but wont be a while till its affordable
Id say full body motion is a big missing element now. I really want a simbolrides chair but they dont seem to be making them. Also really hi FOV wraparound VR glasses with Headtracking would do me for a long while, but wont be a while till its affordable
Windows 8
470GTX
Nvidia 3D Vision Kit (glasses are useless now)
Passive LG LW57000 55"
Optoma HD33
Razer Hydra
TrackIR
Oculus Rift (soon)
Two crossed eyes
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='12 December 2011 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1323715501' post='1341291']
Many scientists agree on time being #4, and I'm among those in agreement. We could go significantly deeper down this rabbit hole, but it begins to look both incredibly religious and incredibly hippie-ish simultaneously if you aren't keeping up with the mathematical constructs.
[/quote]
The concept of the forth dimension being time is called Spacetime (or Minkowski space) and pretty much every reputable scientist actually sees it as valid because it's essentially required to understand e=mc². That doesn't make euclidean space invalid either, they're not mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe string theory relies on Euclidean space.
Off-topic: I'm not sure that all of this is completely right but if anyone is interested about e=mc² and the 4th dimension as spacetime explains it, I'll try to explain a bit of it. So, c is the speed of light, the universal constant, however it can also be seen as the default speed of time. I should explain that since time is a dimension, that means you can measure it as a distance and can therefore have "speed". So, if time is the forth dimension, right now, we are speeding through spacetime at the speed of light and always exactly the speed of light. If we move very fast through the normal 3 dimensions (I'm talking a good fraction of c), in order to still be moving through spacetime at the speed of light, we have to go through time slower. Which explains the time dilation effect that we've actually been able to measure in fast moving objects (GPS satelites actually have to adjust for this effect). And that's all I know about e=mc²... I read a book called "Why does e=mc²" a while back, it was actually pretty good.  Â
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='12 December 2011 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1323715501' post='1341291']
Many scientists agree on time being #4, and I'm among those in agreement. We could go significantly deeper down this rabbit hole, but it begins to look both incredibly religious and incredibly hippie-ish simultaneously if you aren't keeping up with the mathematical constructs.
The concept of the forth dimension being time is called Spacetime (or Minkowski space) and pretty much every reputable scientist actually sees it as valid because it's essentially required to understand e=mc². That doesn't make euclidean space invalid either, they're not mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe string theory relies on Euclidean space.
Off-topic: I'm not sure that all of this is completely right but if anyone is interested about e=mc² and the 4th dimension as spacetime explains it, I'll try to explain a bit of it. So, c is the speed of light, the universal constant, however it can also be seen as the default speed of time. I should explain that since time is a dimension, that means you can measure it as a distance and can therefore have "speed". So, if time is the forth dimension, right now, we are speeding through spacetime at the speed of light and always exactly the speed of light. If we move very fast through the normal 3 dimensions (I'm talking a good fraction of c), in order to still be moving through spacetime at the speed of light, we have to go through time slower. Which explains the time dilation effect that we've actually been able to measure in fast moving objects (GPS satelites actually have to adjust for this effect). And that's all I know about e=mc²... I read a book called "Why does e=mc²" a while back, it was actually pretty good.  Â
I7 8700K
Asrock Killer Z370
G.Skill 16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
Gigabyte RTX 2080
Corsair AX1200 watts Platinum PSU
1tb Samsung 840 Evo SSD
BenQ 27 inch 4K monitor
Asus VG278H 27 inch 3D monitor
VR is going to be the next big thing in gaming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni-QFyfZ8rY&feature=player_embedded
[/quote]
Twin high-resolution 852 x 480 LCD displays ??
I prefer my 2560x1600 30" monitor or my 1920x1080 240hz 55" 3d tv...
VR is going to be the next big thing in gaming.
;feature=player_embedded
Twin high-resolution 852 x 480 LCD displays ??
I prefer my 2560x1600 30" monitor or my 1920x1080 240hz 55" 3d tv...
Benchmark your reflexes! *new*
Windows 8
470GTX
Nvidia 3D Vision Kit (glasses are useless now)
Passive LG LW57000 55"
Optoma HD33
Razer Hydra
TrackIR
Oculus Rift (soon)
Two crossed eyes