Oh, and if they studied how much a head and a hand weighs in zero-gravity: it weighs nothing because there is no gravity!!!! There is only mass. No need to study websites (websites?) of NASA to know what you learned in class.
So many mistakes in a single paragraph. :)
In reply to
This message and account have been deleted at the user's request
I think this game is quickly becoming my most anticipated title, even more than Little Big Planet. A huge jump from when I thought the game looked horrible, derivative, and boring from the first announcement / screens. I think this one has potential to be better at doing what Resident Evil does than RE5 itself, but we'll see.
A lot of the PR people in these kind of videos come off as dicks / idiots though. The Star Wars Force Unleashed videos were painful to me.
No, I am not.
1) "Zero G" term (aka weightlessness) doesn't really mean there is no gravity. Just calculate using Gauss' law for gravity what gravitational acceleration there is 200 km above Earth's surface
2)if there is mass, there must be a gravity field generated by it
3)studying NASA websites might educate you on a lot of things and it's wise for them to do so :)
I'm starting to hate this dev diaries, they are so retarded! For ANY game. They are a huge compilation of shit! Like they are trying to market this game for a bunch of idiots, and I truly feel left out.
"We really need better buzzwords for the video man, how about NASA?"
"Yes, let's also point out the obvious and make it seem like it's never been done before, or like something that somehow makes this game a gem in the history of gaming!"
And these videos always ALWAYS have some stupid "My favorite part". I mean it's cool, but they are so predictable they don't come through as developers, and they just show what they are--at the very least for that moment--PR/marketing machines, puppets if you will.
Commented on 2008-09-10 03:59:27 In reply to LEBATO
Posted by LEBATO
I'm starting to hate this dev diaries, they are so retarded! For ANY game. They are a huge compilation of shit! Like they are trying to market this game for a bunch of idiots, and I truly feel left out.
I've gotten to the point where I completely filter out any value statements made in these videos and just look at the facts. If they're saying "This audio system is so awesome because you only hear your heartbeat in space, becuz NASA sez so", I only listen to the part that matters for the game.
So basically I still enjoy these videos, but I'll ignore most of the crap that's actually being said.
In reply to
This message and account have been deleted at the user's request
Zero G = weightlesness, meaning there is no weight. In other words, opposing gravity fields neutralise each other. W=mg where g=0. So the weight of a hand and a head is 0.
This is not true. In fact, zero g is (usually) a state when gravity is the only force applied to a body is gravitational force.
In reply to
This message and account have been deleted at the user's request
I think you are mixing things up. A satellite stays in orbit because of the vector that is made by it's velocity and gravity (adjustments are made by thrusters). Zero-gravity means there is no gravity because all opposing gravity (or other )forces equal 0 (hence the name ZERO). In this state an object becomes weightless. This not only applies in space. If an object is floating in water (not on the surface), it is also weightless because the force applied by water on the object equals the gravity force of earth but opposing, hence Zero-gravity.
It is you who is confusing things. Your water example is good, but it doesn't explain why objects inside a space vessel are weightless.
Weightlessness means that an object isn't in a state when it loses its weight, but in a state when it loses its apparent weight. Apparent weight isn't caused by gravity, it's caused by reaction forces.
Let's assume that an object lays on a ground of water reservoir, ie. it's heavier than water. So gravity is an downward force, buoyancy is an upward force. However, because buoyancy is smaller than gravity, there has to be a third force that keeps the body at rest - the ground's reaction force, that is responsible for apparent weight. In your example buoyancy is equal to gravity (but has opposite direction, of course), so that object has apparent weight equal zero - hence the state of weightlessness.
On a space vessel, however, there is no such force as buoyancy that would oppose gravity. So why an object inside it does not fall downwards, but move freely inside it? For the very same reason the space vessel doesn't fall downward - the object has the same velocity as the vessel (relatively to Earth), which is perpendicular to gravity. That's why I asked that question in my previous post. It would be sort of illogical if there was a gravity field outside of the satellite but would disappear or be nullified by something else inside of it, don't you think?
what about the game zero g in real life can mean 1 thing but in the game it simply states how the character feels moving in "zero g" no need to get scientific about it really just simply applying one term to another situation so whatever you think zero g might be in real life is irrelavant to the game world
now in real life it is impossible for something with any amount of mass to weight absolute 0 as you think droezelke do to the fact that any amount of matter creats its own gravitational pull meaning things that have less mass will orbit it
in short if your out in the middle of outer space with nothing for light years then eventually things like space dust begin to orbit you as for absolute 0 theres no way to weigh someone outside of formulas and even then youll need a control(lets say said objects weight on earth)and a standerd to compare it to yet since their is no way to weigh things in space all you end up with is a paradox being so maybe you should check your science book every now and then and youll see that when dealing with weight in outer space all you get are estamations
Wow a physics lesson! Seriously tho all this debate would have been simply resolved if you just look at Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Everything you would need to figure out who was right about this issue is right in that formula.
There it is for any of you who don't know it off the top of your head. Basically that law states that the gravitational force (F) between two objects is equal to the Gravitational constant multiplied by the sum of the two object's mass divided by the square of the distance between them. Therefore no object with mass, no matter how far away it is from something like a planet will ever have a gravitational force of 0. It might be infinitesimal, but it's still there.
Commented on 2008-09-10 23:43:02 In reply to Heywood
Posted by Heywood
Wow a physics lesson! Seriously tho all this debate would have been simply resolved if you just look at Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Everything you would need to figure out who was right about this issue is right in that formula.
There it is for any of you who don't know it off the top of your head. Basically that law states that the gravitational force (F) between two objects is equal to the Gravitational constant multiplied by the sum of the two object's mass divided by the square of the distance between them. Therefore no object with mass, no matter how far away it is from something like a planet will ever have a gravitational force of 0. It might be infinitesimal, but it's still there.
I bet everyone here knows that law. Although what you said is not true (for classical theory of gravity), the law doesn't apply to objects but to point masses :P But it's a good estimation between any two objects if the distance between them is big enough.
Commented on 2008-09-11 02:26:00 In reply to szaromir
Posted by szaromir
Although what you said is not true (for classical theory of gravity), the law doesn't apply to objects but to point masses
That law applies to anthing that has mass. If something has mass, then it exerts a force on anything else that has mass regardless of the distance. The idea of a "point mass" is just a mathematical estimation used for formulas such as that one. They just consider the object as a single point to make things more practical.
any object with mass creats gravity, gravity is a force that attracts objects with less mass, and as all places where gravity can be found will have some sort of weight examples include the moon, earth, even the smallest meteor thus proving there is no such thing as zero g unless no form of matter can be found thus creating a grammer parodox known as zero g
for all who still dont understand anywhere mass can be found youll find gravity making it impossible to experiance zero g in any form
but like i stated earlier the game developers use this phrase to help explain whats happening in the VIDEO GAME as some people wont understand more advanced scientific explinations so instead they use zero g that most people would understand means LOW GRAVITY once again no such thing as ZERO G!!!!!
Commented on 2008-09-11 13:07:40 In reply to Heywood
Posted by Heywood
That law applies to anthing that has mass. If something has mass, then it exerts a force on anything else that has mass regardless of the distance. The idea of a "point mass" is just a mathematical estimation used for formulas such as that one. They just consider the object as a single point to make things more practical.
Truth to be told, you can easily calculate gravity between any two objects (if you know their qualities) without treating them like mass points. Simple calculus is enough for that. :)
but like i stated earlier the game developers use this phrase to help explain whats happening in the VIDEO GAME as some people wont understand more advanced scientific explinations so instead they use zero g that most people would understand means LOW GRAVITY once again no such thing as ZERO G!!!!!
Well, gravty fields can nullify each other, so there potentially exist places or points of zero gravity acceleration but it's rather improbable. Still, it doesn't explain weightlessness in space :)
Loakum
@Driftwood Awesome! I’m loving it! It does show a much crisper picture and the frame rate looks good! I was playing Stella Blade and Dragonball Soarkling Blast! :) (2 Weeks ago)
Driftwood
@Loakum: enjoy, the one Sony sent us will be there on launch day. Coverage will follow asap. (2 Weeks ago)
Loakum
*takes a large sip of victorious grape juice* ok….my PS5 pro arrived early! So much winning! :) (2 Weeks ago)
Driftwood
@reneyvane: non ils l'ont publié le 1er octobre et je crois que tu l'avais déjà linkée. ;) (6 Weeks ago)
reneyvane
Factornews à joué à KingdomComeDeliverance2 au Gamescom 2024 mais ne publie sa preview que maintenant ? [url] (7 Weeks ago)
CraCra
Y a un souci sur les forums ? (9 Weeks ago)
nostradamus
very few with religious beliefs are naive or zealots, but for sure don't find amusing their beliefs being thrown in for clout. maybe STFU with that discourse? (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Download is now functional again on Gamersyde. Sorry for the past 53 days or so when it wasn't. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Another (French) livestream today at 2:30 CEST but you're welcome to drop by and speak English. I will gladly answer in English when I get a chance to catch a breath. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
GSY is getting some nice content at 3 pm CEST with our July podcast and some videos of the Deus Ex Mankind Divided preview build. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
For once we'll be live at 4:30 pm CEST. Blim should not even be tired! (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
More Quantum Break coverage coming in a few hours, 9:00 a.m CEST. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
We'll have a full review up for Firewatch at 7 pm CET. Videos will only be tomorrow though. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Tonight's livestream will be at 9:15 GMT+1, not GMT+2 as first stated. (> 3 Months ago)
Patreon
All comments (31)
Commented on 2008-09-09 15:54:35
Commented on 2008-09-09 17:15:19They do make it look good there though....whats happening to me, I seem to be buying more and more EA products these days!
Commented on 2008-09-09 20:12:06
Commented on 2008-09-09 23:08:22 In reply to barnard666They do make it look good there though....whats happening to me, I seem to be buying more and more EA products these days!
But yea there are a few EA games on my list now.
Commented on 2008-09-10 00:44:47A lot of the PR people in these kind of videos come off as dicks / idiots though. The Star Wars Force Unleashed videos were painful to me.
Commented on 2008-09-10 00:59:571) "Zero G" term (aka weightlessness) doesn't really mean there is no gravity. Just calculate using Gauss' law for gravity what gravitational acceleration there is 200 km above Earth's surface
2)if there is mass, there must be a gravity field generated by it
3)studying NASA websites might educate you on a lot of things and it's wise for them to do so :)
Commented on 2008-09-10 02:46:50"We really need better buzzwords for the video man, how about NASA?"
"Yes, let's also point out the obvious and make it seem like it's never been done before, or like something that somehow makes this game a gem in the history of gaming!"
And these videos always ALWAYS have some stupid "My favorite part". I mean it's cool, but they are so predictable they don't come through as developers, and they just show what they are--at the very least for that moment--PR/marketing machines, puppets if you will.
Commented on 2008-09-10 03:59:27 In reply to LEBATOSo basically I still enjoy these videos, but I'll ignore most of the crap that's actually being said.
Commented on 2008-09-10 08:54:20
Commented on 2008-09-10 10:54:40Bring them on!
Commented on 2008-09-10 11:13:20
Commented on 2008-09-10 13:31:26
Commented on 2008-09-10 18:52:09
Commented on 2008-09-10 19:19:12Weightlessness means that an object isn't in a state when it loses its weight, but in a state when it loses its apparent weight. Apparent weight isn't caused by gravity, it's caused by reaction forces.
Let's assume that an object lays on a ground of water reservoir, ie. it's heavier than water. So gravity is an downward force, buoyancy is an upward force. However, because buoyancy is smaller than gravity, there has to be a third force that keeps the body at rest - the ground's reaction force, that is responsible for apparent weight. In your example buoyancy is equal to gravity (but has opposite direction, of course), so that object has apparent weight equal zero - hence the state of weightlessness.
On a space vessel, however, there is no such force as buoyancy that would oppose gravity. So why an object inside it does not fall downwards, but move freely inside it? For the very same reason the space vessel doesn't fall downward - the object has the same velocity as the vessel (relatively to Earth), which is perpendicular to gravity. That's why I asked that question in my previous post. It would be sort of illogical if there was a gravity field outside of the satellite but would disappear or be nullified by something else inside of it, don't you think?
Zero G is just a misleading term.
Cheers. :)
Commented on 2008-09-10 21:53:13now in real life it is impossible for something with any amount of mass to weight absolute 0 as you think droezelke do to the fact that any amount of matter creats its own gravitational pull meaning things that have less mass will orbit it
in short if your out in the middle of outer space with nothing for light years then eventually things like space dust begin to orbit you as for absolute 0 theres no way to weigh someone outside of formulas and even then youll need a control(lets say said objects weight on earth)and a standerd to compare it to yet since their is no way to weigh things in space all you end up with is a paradox being so maybe you should check your science book every now and then and youll see that when dealing with weight in outer space all you get are estamations
Commented on 2008-09-10 22:50:45http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_unive...
There it is for any of you who don't know it off the top of your head. Basically that law states that the gravitational force (F) between two objects is equal to the Gravitational constant multiplied by the sum of the two object's mass divided by the square of the distance between them. Therefore no object with mass, no matter how far away it is from something like a planet will ever have a gravitational force of 0. It might be infinitesimal, but it's still there.
Commented on 2008-09-10 23:43:02 In reply to Heywoodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_unive...
There it is for any of you who don't know it off the top of your head. Basically that law states that the gravitational force (F) between two objects is equal to the Gravitational constant multiplied by the sum of the two object's mass divided by the square of the distance between them. Therefore no object with mass, no matter how far away it is from something like a planet will ever have a gravitational force of 0. It might be infinitesimal, but it's still there.
Commented on 2008-09-11 02:26:00 In reply to szaromir
Commented on 2008-09-11 02:34:51for all who still dont understand anywhere mass can be found youll find gravity making it impossible to experiance zero g in any form
but like i stated earlier the game developers use this phrase to help explain whats happening in the VIDEO GAME as some people wont understand more advanced scientific explinations so instead they use zero g that most people would understand means LOW GRAVITY once again no such thing as ZERO G!!!!!
Commented on 2008-09-11 13:07:40 In reply to Heywood