A new teaser. The real demo is almost ready... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q6cPDTkhp4&feature=youtu.be
It's still taking time to finish. The problem is writing it how the universe must do it without maths. It seems to be that the Universe always uses the number 6 for some reason. It uses it like we would use numbers in 1's. I have found that the 360 deg of a circle, the 6 quarks, the spacing of 6, the scale of 6, all seem to work together, and you can get a lot done without straying away from it. The kissing problem sort of works with all 6's as well. So if the LHC ends up with a Higgs Boson of 126 gev that wouldn't surprise me either. Anyway, so far, all of my code is in 6's.
Breaking the circle into "360 degrees" is not natural, I understand it is a human convention. "126 gev" would be entirely a human convention as well. But 6 as number is a real natural number and could well be involved. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Some of these human conventions come from an older convention, and they might lead to a natural number. Like, maybe 360 deg comes from triangles, and being as they can make a natural 6 you get a 6. 3 is OK anyway, it's just a half sized particle.
Well yeah that's good because hexagons are what I want. If everything was worked out to base 6 I wonder how many hits we would get in the Universe? Like the scale of Space-Time grain for example. I am scaling everything in 6's so I would expect a hit.
My particle, and the kissing problem all made from the number 6. Not bad huh?.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Looks a bit like a baby embryonic Universe to me. Let it grow! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Next I repeat 12 around this one, and then loop it. Then I start the program running, and watch what happens. So as you can gather, this is most of the program finished.
Show me two lines of code, otherwise I am thinking you are just doing animations. Or if there is no code as such what are you doing to connect the idea to the picture, for it is really weird you can write code to draw an object. It's new to me.
Ok.. here's my camera control code, it doesn't count as part of the loop.... positionCamera: control camera using arrowkeys 0,0.001,0 xp# = camera position x() yp# = camera position y() zp# = camera position z() position camera xp#, yp#, zp# cx# = cx# + mousemovey(): cy# = cy# + mousemovex() rotate camera cx#, cy#, 0 camAngleY# = wrapvalue(camera angle y()) return I don't actually use the graphics to do anything. That is just so that you can see what is happening. I could write all of the code in DIM's but then you wouldn't see anything.
Just a snippet of science news today. 7 years ago that I was predicting this... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16534434 Here's one of my old pictures where I tried to put a bubble around the most visible suns that I could see. The threads are on the internet somewhere.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Pincho: The news story has nothing to do with your picture of a galaxy with bubbles around groups of millions of stars. The news story is about the "bubbles" in the gas around individual, newly-formed stars.
Yeah I know but my threads were about individual stars. I just saved time by making bubbles around groups of stars.
The output seems basically 2 dimensional, whereas I thought you were working with the Kissing Problem, a 3 dimensional issue? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The output is 3D, what do you think this is?... xp# = camera position x() yp# = camera position y() zp# = camera position z()