Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
dybbuk

Doom Members' Website Links

Recommended Posts

If you have one, show it! I've made a lot over the years and got little followers for the work I put in. Sure they were pointless for the most part but lately I've had more of a point. I also have like years of abandoned sites saved and available on the site since 1999/2000. Some are "half uploaded" though. Server issues

 

But if you have one, and you want to share amongst yourselves to find common people or something you're interested in, share yours and check out everyone else's. If no one does, at least I will!

 

Mine is http://www.lehr.me

EDIT: The day after I posted this my hosting plan was overdue and doesn't work right now, lehr.me is set to hopefully very soon redirect DNS to 
http://www.doom2.net/dybbuk/2019site/index.html

Edited by dybbuk

Share this post


Link to post

You have a great cozy site! :3 Looked with interest.

 

I have not created so much to make my own website, but I have an idea to make a Discord server in the form of a gallery of all my maps. I think this will be another factor for the motivation not to leave the mapping. Perhaps I will finish it this year and publish here.

 

Maybe someone will also find this idea interesting and make their own Discord mapping portfolio ...

Share this post


Link to post

Ha! Good thing the day after I post this my server gets suspended for delayed payment

 

I'll still check out all websites that come up

Share this post


Link to post

In reality I have no website made by me, first because I have never had the idea to make a website for something special, and second because I have never in my life done a DooM map by the mere fact it's too complex for me, however I have a small profile where I have made Pixel Art.

If that counts as a website, then well here you go https://www.piskelapp.com/user/6404241778278400

Else than that, I don't have something made for me specifically.

And maybe not soon.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Archanhell said:

Else than that, I don't have something made for me specifically.

And maybe not soon.

Well, if you ever want to have one made for you specifically, hit me up! We'll work something together, and I could use the portfolio work.

</shameless plug>

Share this post


Link to post

Instant fan of both pages and their contents. I might try a couple of your doom levels tonight as they look like they took quite a bit of work.

EDIT: Okay you made Sunlust, my fiance was actually playing that already as I started looking through your maps and tried magnolia and loved it. So yeah, we're both playing your stuff, man

Edited by dybbuk

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/19/2019 at 3:24 PM, Space Boss said:

If ANYONE here needs work done to their site, I can do it. Just send me a message and I'll be glad to make your site look as cool as mine.

I might take you up on that offer. I'll send you the deets.

Share this post


Link to post

https://physics.iupui.edu/~jkinnun/index.htm

Since I graduated, I no longer have the ability to update my website. Eventually I would like to get back into it because there are a few things I still want to accomplish with it...

1. No student in physics should be required to buy price-gouged textbooks. So I want to write a series of articles discussing concepts in physics with some exercises and eventually one day replace textbooks. Luckily for now there are other online physics text book projects out there. But none of them talk about maximum entropy yet and how elegant and fundamental it is.

2. It is rare that any scientist receives education on the philosophy of science and the fundamentals of the scientific method. The method was able to avoid any problems philosophy had with defining truth and knowledge by instead focusing on empiricism and consensus. For this reason many scientists sometimes talk about science in terms of truth and empirical science in terms of proofs, which should not be the case in my opinion.

3. There is somewhat of a crisis in quantum physics in what constitutes a measurement. This has lead to mystics saying that the mind is special and is what causes this quantum mechanical measurement process, which most physicists despise. But despite this most physicists aren't trying to solve this issue. David Bohm solved it by doing a forced marriage between particles and waves which gets rid of the need to do a measurement and he may be right. But I want to try out getting rid of the particle side altogether (which gets rid of the need for measurement) and introduce a measuring potential which in some cases forces waves into a near-particle like confinement. But I really can't complain about other interpretations until I demonstrate my ideas mathematically.

This could all be quackery but what is a quack without a website?

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Space Boss said:

Well, if you ever want to have one made for you specifically, hit me up! We'll work something together, and I could use the portfolio work.

</shameless plug>


Sure ty :p
 

13 hours ago, dybbuk said:

Nice stuff, you just taught me a new website to show my fiance. She likes doing pixel art for my things


Yay

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎1‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 3:35 AM, SuperCupcakeTactics said:

https://supercupcaketactics.neocities.org

 

I need to fix the music still (try it on IE perhaps). I want the next update I do to be pretty meaningful with some new content and not just updating the front page just mostly for the sake of updating :P

Okay so since my server was down I tried a couple of places, one being neocities.org

what a cool idea, it's like a social media network for websites... and I have 400+ visitors and am not listed on google or anywhere. You just have to pick the right tags I guess. This is crazy.

Thanks! Now my DNS servers are updated and redirect to http://jlehr.neocities.org

 

Share this post


Link to post

so I went a little overboard on the new server upgrading the site in the past few days

 

its all one long page with jumplinks. I may switch back but I'm liking this for now, easier updating and finding things: http://jlehr.neocities.org

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/20/2019 at 12:27 PM, Immorpher said:

3. There is somewhat of a crisis in quantum physics in what constitutes a measurement. This has lead to mystics saying that the mind is special and is what causes this quantum mechanical measurement process, which most physicists despise. But despite this most physicists aren't trying to solve this issue. David Bohm solved it by doing a forced marriage between particles and waves which gets rid of the need to do a measurement and he may be right. But I want to try out getting rid of the particle side altogether (which gets rid of the need for measurement) and introduce a measuring potential which in some cases forces waves into a near-particle like confinement. But I really can't complain about other interpretations until I demonstrate my ideas mathematically.
 

 

As to the textbooks, in the USA anyway, they are locked in with the scholastic method of education.  Professors are often required to further their field and show value to the school while they teach.  For most, this means writing a book based on the curriculum for the classes they teach.  That way, they can earn extra money, making their extra work pay off.  I had plenty of classes where we barely used the textbook, but, of course, it was required.    I'm sure any student would agree the prices are absurd.

 

As for the scientific method and wave/particle duality, I agree that it is a difficult bridge for science to cross.  Quantum theory is the most tested scientific theory; but it is 'proven' by empirical outcomes that cannot be directly observed.  We see the results, just like the effects of gravity, but we cannot explain the details.  We know the results of quantum interactions, QCD, and QED, but we don't know the mechanism behind the interactions.  And the particles, even at the sub-atomic level are too small to be directly observed; or at least observed without interacting with the particles(and, in essence, ruining the test).  I'm sure you know way more about this than me.  Proving quantum interactions with mathematics instead of empiricism is leaving it as unproven IMVHO.  It is still just theory.  A man and a woman have sex.  The woman becomes pregnant.  We understand the correlation and the results, but we don't understand the 'how' in quantum interactions.

 

I'd like to hear your take on Yang-Mills gauge theory, renormalization and Feynman's ideas, whether there are three base forces or one, and how dark matter and dark energy influence quantum field theory through time.

Share this post


Link to post

Indeed pretty much all that matters in physics is the result of an empirical foundation, as is the nature of science. Part of this means any new theory has constants which need further explanation. So I don't think there will be ever an official end of science, just possibly diminishing returns. As far as my dissertation goes I am far away from fundamental particle physics as I study larger biological systems where statistics and entropy becomes very important. But luckily pretty much all physicists still get the same basic education (unlike other fields such as chemistry), so although I am not an expert, I can give some opinions on it!

Feynman had some fantastic ideas; his diagrams massively help in solving particle interactions. I chose his path integral formulation of QM to present during one of my courses. He demonstrated that if you track a particle's wave function through space and time, it interferes in such a way it becomes sharply a classical path, for large spaces and times. This is without inferring any "measurement" process or wavefunction collapse to a classical particle. This is partially why I think it could be possible to do away with the classical particle picture with wavefunction collapse picture in QM.

When it comes to dark matter, dark energy, unifying fundamental forces it comes down to how QM and general relativity (GR) play with each other. It is often a misconception that they are incompatible, but that's not true, it's just that they operate in different mathematical spaces. So it becomes unclear how they behave with each other. I know that Dirac started some of the early work in trying to make quantum mechanics equations invariant under relativistic transformations. He eventually succeeded which also led to the discovery of antimatter. Then in particle physics it lead to the Higgs field (why particles exhibit mass, but doesn't explain the interaction of gravity). Gravity is the only force described as the curvature of space time. The other forces on the other hand were described as fields classically, then those fields became quantised. If we still had the Netwonian idea of gravity we probably would have tried quantizing it too, but it wouldn't have helped explain the anomalies that general relativity did. I think I have a lack of imagination as it is hard for me to imagine a particle that is a curvature of spacetime. Wolfram was able to replicate the results of relativity using a network formulation (https://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2015/12/what-is-spacetime-really/). He could be onto something that instead of reality working on "fields" but on a "network", and that network would allow for a quantized description of relativity.

As languages go QM and GR do not share many words. But GR retains a way of calculating motion through trajectories from classical physics. David Bohm was able to incorporate trajectories into his version of QM because he explicitly used a particle formulation. So through the common formulation of trajectories you can simulate GR with some quantum mechanical constraints. Recently this has been done by a couple scientists and they say it could account for dark matter and dark energy that appears as corrections in large scale GR (https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html).

Since dark matter and dark energy are so unclear at this point, and unifying it into QM has been unsuccessful as of yet, it is hard for me to make a choice on what makes the most sense to me. I cannot discount dark matter being undiscovered particles or a correction to how gravity behaves in QM, it could go either way it seems to me! Dark energy is even more mysterious but apparently Roger Penrose has some ideas where he is trying to come to terms with it (https://physicsworld.com/a/new-evidence-for-cyclic-universe-claimed-by-roger-penrose-and-colleagues/). It seems we recognize that these problems need to be solved and great minds are working at it, so we may be onto another "paradigm shift."

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×