Re: The Frame rate of real life.

**Flappy** · 10-14-2008, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by sordavie

You didn't expect people to just accept your claim without thought did you?

rawr, dont question, just listen! jk

but seriously your criticism is helpful :P and the more we get the more we have to rethink and develope our claim till. . . we give up or get it right (laughs at the idea).

My previous post was just to state that I do not want a serious arguement to start because of this (i doubt one will ^.^) and that the criticism should stay constructive. . .

**superwacker** · 10-15-2008, 10:50 AM

I'm glad Sordavie has been posting here. Combined with what flappy and I posted, they really add to the think-outside-the-box feel of the thread.

On topic: One thing I didn't consider is the inconsistency of time. Since time isn't absolute (or i guess discrete?), all our FPS measurements would be relative unless some sort of universal standard for a measurement of time is made (more than likely it has and I don't know what it is). Before someone says seconds are universal standards, understand that I was thinking how the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters/second in the theoretical vacuum of free space. We know that EM radiation cannot travel at that speed because it is not passing through a perfect vacuum. It would be fairly simple to modify the definition of a second to work in the same way (maybe it's been done o_O).

Regardless, I can't discredit anything Sordavie has said thus far. However, the part about Planck Length and Time being barriers still stands, since it is theoretically impossible to measure to a shorter precision than the Planck Length or Planck Time. I believe that anything existing shorter than those measurements can't exist in the laws of physics we have today (I say believe because I remember it from somewhere but I can't find the source material <_<, so correct me if I'm wrong).

So I guess we could restate our claim that the frame rate of the universe measured by the smallest current measurement of time, assuming a normal second and the perfect vacuum of space, is 1.855094832e+43 frames per second. This is assuming that the shortest distance a photon can travel is a Planck Length in a Planck Time, and therefore the most capable of instruments would never be able to perceive more frames per second since Electromagnetic radiation in the present-day model of physics is not able to travel a shorter distance than the Planck Length.

Originally Posted by sordavie

'Ain't' is fine colloquially.

ya rly lol srsly u all think i talk like this in-game?

**ScratchMonkey** · 10-21-2008, 04:58 PM

There was a time when printer resolution was the same as the dot pitch. Then HP introduced RET, which moved the printhead a distance less than a dot pitch, allowing you to get much higher printing resolution. If you think of Planck length/time as the dot pitch of reality, nothing says you can't dither reality inside of that duration to get smaller time resolution.

**beep** · 10-22-2008, 12:29 AM

Doesn't the basic concept or question of FPS assume a discrete frame?

That seems to imply a "digital" time...but time isn't digital. Even though we divide it into units (whether seconds or Plancks or otherwise), that is an arbitrary division by us as observers.

Thread Tools

Display