Minecraft Forums

Quote from BIOadam7

Some of us don't have smart phones that may want to use this, but would be unable to because we don't have an app feature.

Don't need a smartphone. An iPod works just fine.

I like Jungle biomes to build Tree-houses in. Lots of EPICLY-huge trees to use as support pillars.

A tough choice. I voted for Eli354's banner - it's a nice, clean design, provides a good amount of information,a nd above all, it's easily readable.

A few of the others are worth an Honorable Mention, IMO:

HemmiB - a very attractive banner, it suffers from one fatal flaw: the text lacks sufficient contrast with the image to be quickly and easily read.

Incetents - a nice, crisp design with clearly readable text. Bit short on information, though.

Spoonfork99 - very very nearly got my vote. I had to ponder for a long time to decide between this one, and Eli354's entry.

Quote from Breadlord

Because the shadow it casts on the moon at night is round.

*laugh*

The Dark Side of the Moon is not thre, beause the Earth "casts a shadow on it". It's there because that is the side that faces away from the sun.

So, the shape of the line from light to dark, is based on the shape of the MOON, not the planet it orbits.

Quote from King Lem

Too hard? Torches and moats. Suddenly, easy mode.

Agreed.

ScribbleCraft.

Seriously - like everything is blocks of paper, that's been "scribbled on" .... all the details are drawn on imperfectly with markers. Not "horrific mess" scribbles, mind; just something looking hand-done.

If I had any talent whatsoever in making textures, I'd do that one myself, starting right this very instant. :smile.gif:

...

...

... DO WANT!!!

Seriously, man. That's awesome. When you're done, this will DEFINITELY be getting a permanent place in my Textures folder!!

Quote from raptor777777

Oh and to soloman: you used the name of a bible book with rules some time ago (can't find the post), but I know the names of all 66 books by head and I am quite sure there is no book with that name.

Quote from Soloman212

You might be thinking of GMPax, I don't recall referencing a book of the Bible.

You're probably right. Yet, to the best of my recollection, I've cited no books that aren't in the Bible (one version of it or another, anyway). I'd be curious to know which book Raptor7's is referring to. Via PM, perhaps, to appease the mods. :smile.gif:

Quote from Cortar

Not a modeling failure.

Yes, it is. You are relying on the classical model to describe the paths of those objects through space - by describing them exclusively in relation to the Sun.

Right here is a much more math-heavy discussion of the very concept I've been trying to get through to you.

You didn't read my post [...]

I did read it, noted the fundamental flaws in the construction of it's ideation, and related those flaws to you. It is you, however, who refuse to apply critical thinking to the matter; you cannot or will not see that you are clinging desperately to several assumptions that rely on a classical model / depiction or orbital relationships.

LEt go of them, and instead, try to see what the lines woudl look like if you didn't try to plot orbits based on "what circles what", but instead merely OBSERVED THE PATHS OF THOSE OBJECTS THROUGH THE SKY, with the Earth as the point of reference.

Ok the sun and earth are the filled in circles, the other colored rings are orbits of other planets. Lets assume that the Earth is stationary, IN NO FRAME OF REFERENCE COULD YOU SAY THE OTHER PLANETS ARE ORBITING THE EARTH.... Because the Sun has SUCH a massive gravity field that the effect of Earth's mass on these other planets is negligible. THESE PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN IN EVERY SINGLE FRAME OF REFERENCE it doesn't change! Please understand this!

The Moon orbits the Earth. You accept this as true, yes?

However, the Sun has a MUCH stronger gravitational effect on the Moon, than the Earth does.

Also, the Moon moves around the Sun at 30km/second, whereas it only moves around the Earth at 1km/second.

By your logic above, then ... does not the Moon orbit the Sun?


...

I want you to play with this "Digital Orrery":

http://dd.dynamicdiagrams.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/orrery_2006.swf

Select the "Tychonian" option in the lower-right. Then, from the upper-left, select "trace planet", and choose one. Any of them will do. The line/curve that results, is what that planet's "orbit" would look like, around the Earth, in an Earth-centric diagram. And here's a partial example of the path Jupiter would take in such a model:



Note, that is the result of tracing the planet's actual movement through space, using all the maths applicable to a Copernican model. So that line is a perfectly accurate record of where Jupiter was, in relation to Earth. Projected forward, it would be a perfectly accurate representation of where Jupiter will be, in relation to Earth. IOW, it works just fine ... but it's messy and complicated ... hence why the Copernican model prevailed, even in the face of strong, state-backed religious opposition to the heliocentric model.

Who said anything about Atheism?

You did, by implication, when you decried ALL religions as "experts in false information or distorting information".

Quote from Cave Johnson

Also another question, If you were a space traveler landing on an alien planet, do you pray toward Earth or in a general direction?

Now, that is an interesting dilemma. And as I play a lot of RPGs, including Science Fiction games, which means positing a lot of scenarios where humanity manages to spread out to the (often surprisingly-habitable) stars ... that's a question worth looking at, at least from the POV of a story/game-setting-designer. I can see a few ways to handle it. One would be for the initial landing spot to be declared "spiritually symbolic" of the Kaaba, in the sense that it is where "Allah's servants first set foot to this world, bringing the light of the Prophet".

Alternately, yes, there could be some effort made to face the actual location of Earth - or perhaps, calculate the spot on the new world that is itself most directly proximate (across the gulf of light-years) to Mecca, and have everyone face towards that place.

Or maybe calculate where such a place owuld have been, on the appropriate date on Earth, and declare that the permanent home of the Kaaba on that new world?

As you can see, just from an outsiders' point of view, there's more than one way to answer that question. Which also means, from a story point of view, there's a great big opening for a schism within that world's Muslim community ... and all the storyline possibilities such a thing entails.

Quote from Cortar

Again, let me say this, the Universe has a volume, it is expanding outward from a singular point which is the center of the universe. We know this point is not Earth, in fact, Earth is pretty far from this point. To make any claim that the Earth is the center of the Universe is just silly.

No, we THEORISE those thijngs. None of it is actually proven, though.

Now why would you ever accept the model on the right, your alternate model? It is obvious the Sun is much closer to the "center" of such a model and it exerts so much more force on any body that they will all orbit it instead of the Earth.

Modelling failure. That black boundary is drawn around the Sun. And therefor, presupposes the Sun as the center of it's area.

Again, you stray from actual physics.

No. You're just not gettign the point: it's possible to describe a mathematical model of "where things are", that DOES presuppose a stationary Earth as the center of everything described.

Does that make it the physical midpoint of anything? No.

Woudl it make it the center of that particular model or map ...? Absolutely YES.

The Sun is six orders of magnitudes larger than the Earth, any force exerted on any other body in the solar system by the Earth will be cancelled out or overridden by the force that the Sun exerts therefore causing these other bodies to orbit around the Sun. To suggest that the bodies orbit the Earth instead of the Sun is just false and no math would ever make sense for this.

Actually, the problem here is that no one body ever orbits another body, without the other body also orbiting the first.

That is to say: the Moon does not orbit the Earth. Both the Earth and the Moon orbit a single common point of reference (which happens to be within the volume of Earth, but not at it's actual center). IOW, they orbit each other.

The same is true of the Earth and the Sun (except the centerpoint of that pair is MUCH closer to the Sun's physical center). Or, say, Jupiter and the Sun (and because Jupiter is so much bigger, that common centerpoint is NOT as close to the Sun's physical center).

Here is an example of what I mean, the black circle is the motion of the Sun (the tiny yellow circle) in relation to a stationary Earth(the tiny blue circle), the other colored circles are the orbits of other planets. No body would ever say these other circles are orbits AROUND Earth. Very obviously and mathematically they are orbiting the Sun. You couldn't explain them as orbiting the Earth with maths.

Yes, you COULD explain them as orbiting the Earth, and you could do it with a mathematical model.

Hell, you could do it with a child's toy. Seriously - go buy a SpiroGraph set. Get two of the circles. Use an outer hole on one circle, and draw such that the circle with your pencil is the one moving around the other. You'll get a shape like the "Model B" I posted above. And, the Sun would be the central hole of the circle that MOVED. You could use various holes on that moving circle to represent the various other planets - and you would get regular, but non-ellipsoid, shapes.

Religions are experts in false information or distorting information in order to fulfill their religious or political agenda. Islam is no exception and in fact is one of the more egregious offenders of scientific or historical misinformation.

And I feel the same way about Atheism.

As for why I'm so adamant? I ABHOR RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE, and the people who spread it all over the place.

To (again) quote the Wiccan Rede: "An it harm none, do as you will."

Quote from Cortar

You can't change what is written you NEVER said "some."

That exact word, no. The meaning, yes.

About Music, did you not read the links, some people claim all forms of music played on musical instruments is haraam .

SOME. Not all. And that was my entire point: there is no universally-held-to-be-absolute rule or law.

You really don't understand Islam do you? First, those aren't the only requirements for something that can be wasting time. Second.... You really don't understand Islam.

Well, no; I'm not Islamic. Are you?

Many Imams will tell you if you get together with a group of people and don't talk about Islam at least once then you aren't a good enough Muslim.

Many, but not all. That's the catch, you see.

Can you seriously not spot a joke.... Some people :-/

When you write something in text ... it lacks the host of other cues, some subtle and some not. Like facial expressions, body language, tone and pitch of the voice, etc. When you try to write something as a joke, double check and make sure it cannot be mistaken for not being humorous, before posting it. And maybe include an emoticon or two.

So question, was the Kaaba the center of the universe when it was built as a Zoroasterian fire temple or only after the Muslims took it over and claimed it was something else? Just curious

No clue. Keep in mind, my own position of Faith is Agnosticism - which says that one cannot know if there is or is not a God (or similar "supreme being(s)").

Umm.... The frame of reference doesn't change the fact that the galactic center of the universe is NOT Earth and nothing you ever do can change that. If the universe where infinite you would be right, but since it is not and it has a definite volume the center of the universe never changes depending on your reference point.

You're dead wrong on that. Calling something "the center of ___" is, in fact, an effort to define a frame of reference. It would be entirely possible to create a mathematical model that relied on the earth being the center of the universe, and even stationary within that universe. Everything else would have motion relative to that defined center;

Let me try to illustrate a point. Take a solar system with one primary, one planetoid, and that planetoid has a single satellite. In current, classical modelling, it would look like this:



That's a classic, tiered heliocentric model, yes? It depicts the planet orbiting it's primary, and the sattellite orbiting the planet. BUT ... here's the kicker ... the satellite could also be described as orbiting the primary directly. That model would look something like this:


Perfectly accurate (the concept, not the actual maths - that's just a hand-drawn doodle for illustrative purposes, as I'm sure you're already aware). Mathematically modellable. A completely viable model of the orbital path of that satellite.

It's just rather messily complex. It's not as easy to use, nor to understand, as the first model. That's why - as Ockham advises us, in fact - we prefer the first model: solely for it's simplicity. But that first model is NOT, absolutely in no way, "more correct". It's just simpler to illustrate, and easier to understand. That's ALL it is.

Our own moon's path through space could be described exactly like both of those images, by the way (though, that's ignoring our sun's progression around the milky way, and our galaxy's progression within the Local Group, etc, etc, etc).

Quote from Cortar

The more I think about it, the more I realize how wrong you are in this.

Except that, you know, I'm not wrong.

First, nobody ever said anything about center of the solar system.

Except, you know, if you're the center of the universe you are ipso facto also the center of the solar system. And actually, outside the solar system, modelling the universe with us as the center actually grows easier, in some ways.

And I already told you its impossible to suggest the Earth is the center of the universe in any way shape or form

Except, you know, that's not true. It is entirely possible to describe the universe in terms of a stationary Earth, sitting right at the center of everything. The reason we DON'T, is because that produces a messy, complicated model of the universe. Divorcing ourselves from an Earth-centric model of the universe

Second, Lets pretend for some reason you had a motive to prove the Earth IS the center of the solar system. Okay, so we fix it in space, now we see that the sun orbits the Earth in this model, but wait, the other planets.... They don't, guess what? They STILL orbit the Sun so we have this stupid looking model of a tiny speck in the center of this giant solar system and supposedly the Sun orbits around it, but then everything else orbits around the Sun.

No, in that model you would not track the planets as orbiting the Sun. You'd track them as orbiting the Earth as well. Their moons, too.

Naturally, the orbits would be extremely complex - and non-elliptical for all but the Moon and the Sun. The maths needed to describe and predict those orbits would neccessarily be extremely complex - difficult not only to derive initially, but to apply in practise.

Difficult, messy, complex ... but not impossible.

Using Koepler's theorems to describe not-quite-circular orbits, smaller bodies spinning about larger ones, is easier, simpler, cleaner (and therefor preferred) ... but not "more correct".

Quote from Tikipaka

Wow. GMPax took that way too seriously. [...] You were making a statement on something I never implied.

You said it was "a sign of addiction". I replied to exactly those words. And, addiction is universally negative, and something that people SHOULDN'T do.

Yeesh. Seems like some people can't take a joke.

Religion isn't something to joke about, except with your actual, close friends. Because, you know, some of us take the subject quite seriously.

Quote from Slayour98

Look, I don't hate any faith and one of my best friends is a Muslim, but [...]

... but, you want to attack the underpinnings of his religion, anyway.

Bad form, Sir. Bad form.

Just to clarify, I don't hate religion, I am simply expressing the views of my religion just like you.

No, you're not. You're trying to paint some of the basic, accepted premises of someone else's religion.

Now, let me point out the flaw to you, in your questions:

(A) the Kaaba need not mark the physical center of the universe, it may mark the spiritual center;

(:cool.gif: the Kaaba is a marker, not the actual center of the Universe. Moving the marker, does not move what it is supposed to mark - any more than swapping some street signs around, changes which street is ACTUALLY which.

(C) Any Astronomer with half a dozen brain cells will tell you, it's possible to describe a mathematical model which would properly and accurately describe the movements of bodies within solar system (and beyond, for that matter), while simultaneously adhering to the pre-Copernican Earth-centric model of the universe. Indeed, even Copernicus didn't have the math to describe the orbit of planets around the Sun - those didn't come along until Koepler put his two cents in. The main problem with doing such a thing woudl be, that the maths would be much much much more complex, and a whole lot less "elegant". Visual depictions of planetary and solar movements would also be a lot less cleanly simple - no circular paths, except for the sun and moon, for example. But IT COULD BE DONE, AND BE ENTIRELY ACCURATE.

Quote from Cortar

Ummm are we playing the same game? There are animals and humans in this game

I never said there were. I was only correcting you that SOME "living things" can be depicted without breaking any rules - plants, fungi, that sort of thing.

Fine just use google yourself, [...]

I did. And I didn't find anything like a blanket prohibition.

Minecraft is WASTING time though,

That doesn't appear to matter. As I said, it would have to waste time in a way that interferes with daily prayers, or other obligatory religious practices and observances.

To be fair, is it possible to only play Minecraft for 30 minutes :-)

Yes, absolutely it is. Especially if your choice were "play for 30inutes or not at all" ...