Comment on redshift logo by greenhybrid
wonderfull. int256 should be superior in performance compared to hierarchical spaces.
with whole universe, do you mean the visible universe? because someday, the picogen renderer "redshift" shall live up it's name
hmm, then what remains is how to simulate a branching universe inside a multiverse of branching universes ... :/
with whole universe, do you mean the visible universe? because someday, the picogen renderer "redshift" shall live up it's name
hmm, then what remains is how to simulate a branching universe inside a multiverse of branching universes ... :/
of course the visible one. There is no proofable number for all the other variants.
The multiverses will need a further definition though, like, 4D or higher
All the verses lie in a bigger nD-verse (physicists aren't sure, how many... heard so many variants 'till now xD I wonder what's the most popular one right now...)
Also, for multiverses and co, if you look at the organisation from sub-atomic particles up to multiverses in a fractal way (basically different steps or energy-organisation, in the end), you might get a feel for true physical infinity - aka you'll need infints for that xD
btw, how I calculated it:
2^256 = 115,792,089,237,316,195,423,570,985,008,687,907,853,269,984,665,640,564,039,457,584,007,913,129,639,936
according to Wikipedia, the observable universe is (at least) 93 billion lightyears wide, giving you 8.79829142e26 m
the planck lenght is 1.616252457677754134112479120986938602161024299570340768391981149326239172011423107331e-35 m
that gives you 5.44363683916153986558256955253284561149987547345636819647387763841815866649485631321e+61 planck lenghts for the universe - a number, which uses 80.1102283639848214585003874928078361957640324308066140352606767812020598903014473186% of the available digits in a 256int.
Infact, to print out the whole number as int, you'd only need a 206int, but as that's not as nice as 256 (for computers), 256 could under circumstances (due to optimisation options) be faster than 206...
so, you still have a lot of free space for superuniversal scales
The multiverses will need a further definition though, like, 4D or higher
All the verses lie in a bigger nD-verse (physicists aren't sure, how many... heard so many variants 'till now xD I wonder what's the most popular one right now...)
Also, for multiverses and co, if you look at the organisation from sub-atomic particles up to multiverses in a fractal way (basically different steps or energy-organisation, in the end), you might get a feel for true physical infinity - aka you'll need infints for that xD
btw, how I calculated it:
2^256 = 115,792,089,237,316,195,423,570,985,008,687,907,853,269,984,665,640,564,039,457,584,007,913,129,639,936
according to Wikipedia, the observable universe is (at least) 93 billion lightyears wide, giving you 8.79829142e26 m
the planck lenght is 1.616252457677754134112479120986938602161024299570340768391981149326239172011423107331e-35 m
that gives you 5.44363683916153986558256955253284561149987547345636819647387763841815866649485631321e+61 planck lenghts for the universe - a number, which uses 80.1102283639848214585003874928078361957640324308066140352606767812020598903014473186% of the available digits in a 256int.
Infact, to print out the whole number as int, you'd only need a 206int, but as that's not as nice as 256 (for computers), 256 could under circumstances (due to optimisation options) be faster than 206...
so, you still have a lot of free space for superuniversal scales
yay very cool. thanks for the explanation, mate
yeah, that fractal was why i think that i need some growing hierarchy of branching universes, but i guess i am anyways bound by memory limits (i mean epic universal limits here)
yeah, that fractal was why i think that i need some growing hierarchy of branching universes, but i guess i am anyways bound by memory limits (i mean epic universal limits here
)indeed
Can't wait to see a first prototype of RedShift (The first thing you might want to try, just to test the inifinitiness: Model a very simple earth and go to the moon, the sun and then to the pluto
(all represented as correct-radius marbles, one being an emitter with 5777K (sun) and with some small details on at least the earth, where you start from (a correctly sized flower or something. It should be an object, where you get an idea of its size at one glance^^)
For a first animation-test like that, you could even ONLY write the distance-part and make the rest a very cheap Renderengine of 1980's (or, not THAT cheap maybe xD) - it should just be something like a proof of concept
Can't wait to see a first prototype of RedShift
(The first thing you might want to try, just to test the inifinitiness: Model a very simple earth and go to the moon, the sun and then to the pluto (all represented as correct-radius marbles, one being an emitter with 5777K (sun) and with some small details on at least the earth, where you start from (a correctly sized flower or something. It should be an object, where you get an idea of its size at one glance^^)
For a first animation-test like that, you could even ONLY write the distance-part and make the rest a very cheap Renderengine of 1980's (or, not THAT cheap maybe xD) - it should just be something like a proof of concept