73 replies to this topic

[Mawai]

Athom83, on 03 June 2017 - 05:06 AM, said:

You would be correct, except for few things;
1) That mainly applies to ground preassure, IE the size of the feet.
1.5) Making the feet larger doesn't make the mech less dense. It just gives it bigger feet.
2) While "as dence" as a smaller object, the larger object already has an increase in size for those joints/actuators/etc.
3) It doesn't take into account support given by mynomer musculature.
4) We don't know the actual "textile strength" of the various Armors and Materials that compose the structure (Endo-steel, XT, FT 10X, etc).
4.5) Textile strengths between mechs are somewhat different as they use different materials for structure and armor from mech to mech (except for "endo-steel").

Sorry to nit pick ... it is "tensile" strength as in the post your were quoting. "Textile" refers to fabric or similar woven materials. Tensile refers to the material characteristics in terms of the amount of stress the material can take before failing.

However, I would also like to point out that arguing real world physics when discussing Battletech is usually a lost cause. It is science FICTION (or science fantasy depending on your perspective) and there are a lot of constraints in Battletech the game than make absolutely NO sense from a real world perspective.

- fusion reactor explosions ... look cool makes no sense
- lasers with extremely short effective ranges
- ballistics and missiles also with extremely short effective ranges in real world terms
- the whole idea of walking stompy robots (it is absolutely fun ... but both ground and aerospace vehicles are probably much cheaper to produce and far more effective overall)

The list goes on ... all PGI did with the rescale was try to make the mechs about the right size for their mass but it shows up issues with their mech model 3D shapes in terms of actual game play. The mechs that are less "deep" end up both taller and wider compared to other similar mechs in their weight class which in most scenarios makes them easier to hit when they are firing at opponents since they expose more surface area.

This is also why Stalkers, Marauders and Catapults can be quite effective ... they have large side profiles but end up with proportionally smaller front profiles because of the longer and thicker torsos. They end up being more vulnerable to side shots but less vulnerable when facing (and firing at) opponents. So the strategy of playing them has much less twisting than for other more humanoid shaped mechs.

[Mawai]

PhoenixFire55, on 03 June 2017 - 05:36 AM, said:

This game isn't made out of nowhere. If PGI was actually creating their own universe and their own lore, then sure, they can do whatever the fk they want and balance everything according to their "arbitrary" vision in a "good" sense. But since the game has a tiny little "A BattleTech Game" in its logo and positions itself accordingly (thus drawing in BT fans and revenues from em), everything that goes against BT lore, existing rules and alike is "arbitrary" in a "bad" sense.

But then again, they've never even bothered to actually make a BT game, so all this doesn't really matter. This game already has nothing to do with BT anyway.

I actually think that they tried to draw too much from Battletech in the original design (or didn't take enough).

As you probably know, Battletech is a 10s game turn with hit probability, hit location, and critical hits all decided by dice rolls. The only real control the player has is where the mech moves and when they wish to fire their weapons and at what targets. The rest is controlled by dice roll and the relative position of the mechs.

Most people do not want to play Battletech the board game as a random hit/random location first person shooter. They want to play games like all the previous MechWarrior titles where your shots go where they are aimed.

So ... the basic game design becomes a first person real time shooter where the player controls not only where they go and what they shoot at but the aim of each of the weapons involved.

The next step of design is:
- weapon damage
- weapon heat generation
- weapon ranges
- weapon firing rate
Along with:
- mech heat capacity
- mech heat dissipation

MWO design originally took all of these values except the firing rate from Table top values. Damage, heat, range, dissipation and capacity with the exception that heat sinks increased capacity which allowed mechs to alpha strike without instantly overheating.

MWO tried to use the TT values verbatim without properly factoring in the game turn scaling from Tabletop since the real time firing rates are not defined. In order to do that PGI would have had to change the damage values. For example, if an AC10 fires three times in a 10 second game turn then its damage would have to be 3.333/shot in order to do the Battletech damage of 10 points in 10seconds. PGI decided that this would be hard to understand so an AC10 does 10 damage as in TT ... BUT it now fires much more often and all the other weapons are NOT scaled equivalently so any hint of balance that might have been in the TT numbers is completely lost.

HBS in their Battletech board game simulator actually completely dumped all of the table top damage values as far as I know. The damage numbers look huge but by choosing to use other numbers they can then properly balance their game .. and the HBS game is already a turn based Battletech game much closer to Table top than MWO could ever be. If you want to claim MWO isn't a battletech game because they don't use battletech numbers then you might as well say the same about the HBS product.

[Sjorpha]

PhoenixFire55, on 03 June 2017 - 05:36 AM, said:

This game isn't made out of nowhere. If PGI was actually creating their own universe and their own lore, then sure, they can do whatever the fk they want and balance everything according to their "arbitrary" vision in a "good" sense. But since the game has a tiny little "A BattleTech Game" in its logo and positions itself accordingly (thus drawing in BT fans and revenues from em), everything that goes against BT lore, existing rules and alike is "arbitrary" in a "bad" sense.

But then again, they've never even bothered to actually make a BT game, so all this doesn't really matter. This game already has nothing to do with BT anyway.

There are no specific rules for scaling in battletech at all, if anything was ever truly "arbitrary" it is the original scaling of BT mechs. You have lights taller than assaults and whatnot, they just decided a height for each mech as they went on with basically no relation between size and tonnage.

So if you're asking for scaling to actually follow the battletech sourcebooks I don't know what to say, but I guarantee you it would seem very weird in a shooter. Note that not even HBS does that for their game, they are also doing a more sensible scaling based on tonnage.

So given that battletechs own scaling is completely unworkable for designing a computer game, especially one where scaling matters for balance, PGI and any other developer are forced to come up with their own system for scaling.

Tabletop is just another game, just like this one it takes place in the Battletech universe. You are conflating one of the games with the IP itself just because it's older.

Demanding that different games based on a given IP has the same rules is a very weird position, then why even make different games? The IP is the lore, rules should just be the best design possible and can be different for each game within the IP.

You are one grumpy ****** though, I suspect I'm too much of a happy camper for us to understand each other. Let's just agree to disagree. Development seems to finally be going in the right direction the way i see it.

[Ted Wayz]

Oh, I thought you were going to mention the money wasted on the tournament.

Re-scale was pretty bad too.

[PhoenixFire55]

Sjorpha, on 03 June 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

There are no specific rules for scaling in battletech at all, if anything was ever truly "arbitrary" it is the original scaling of BT mechs. You have lights taller than assaults and whatnot, they just decided a height for each mech as they went on with basically no relation between size and tonnage.

Hence what I've said about rescale in the first place ... they could have balanced all the mechs by a proper scaling. You don't need quirks, you don't need ghost heat or whatever other space magic, you only need to spend a little brain effort on scaling. They chose to fail instead. And the reason why they failed is the same we are discussing ... arbitrary approach to scaling. Same reason quirks have failed ... arbitrary quirk values. You suggest the same thing ... arbitrary density to tonnage scaling. It'll fail in the similar fashion. All balancing should either be done in a natural way, or when natural way isn't apparent like in our case it should be done on hard data, which PGI has and which PGI fails to understand or simply doesn't bother to.

Sjorpha, on 03 June 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

So if you're asking for scaling to actually follow the battletech sourcebooks I don't know what to say, but I guarantee you it would seem very weird in a shooter. Note that not even HBS does that for their game, they are also doing a more sensible scaling based on tonnage.

So given that battletechs own scaling is completely unworkable for designing a computer game, especially one where scaling matters for balance, PGI and any other developer are forced to come up with their own system for scaling.

Scaling in BT is a different thing entirely. Since for example in BT light mechs weren't supposed to fight at all, hence next to no armor and weaponry in stock configs (on IS mechs anyway). Now introduce actual meaningful objectives that require speed and mobility into MWO, make scouting actually matter and you make lights perfectly viable even if they'll be of the same size as an Atlas. However we both know it'll never happen, because Minimally Viable Product^TM.

Sjorpha, on 03 June 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

Tabletop is just another game, just like this one it takes place in the Battletech universe. You are conflating one of the games with the IP itself just because it's older.

This is completely untrue, but it is also completely off topic.

Sjorpha, on 03 June 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

Development seems to finally be going in the right direction the way i see it.

LOL ... yeah right. Delusional much?

[PhoenixFire55]

Mawai, on 03 June 2017 - 07:39 AM, said:

Stuff

Which brings me back to what I've previously said. They could have left all those values exactly what they are supposed to be according to BT ruleset and balanced things out with different means, such as manual convergence, IS vs clan asymmetry, proper MM criteria for each individual mech variant and so on ... Same way they could have balanced out mechs by actual proper scaling, but once again they've decided to give a half-as*ed effort and do things "their way", i.e. to fail.

Mawai, on 03 June 2017 - 07:39 AM, said:

HBS in their Battletech board game simulator actually completely dumped all of the table top damage values as far as I know. The damage numbers look huge but by choosing to use other numbers they can then properly balance their game .. and the HBS game is already a turn based Battletech game much closer to Table top than MWO could ever be. If you want to claim MWO isn't a battletech game because they don't use battletech numbers then you might as well say the same about the HBS product.

I'm not going to discuss HBS BT since I haven't played it. Suffice to say I'll say the same thing about it if its true. What amazes you is why people are fkn reinventing the wheel over and over when BT is already an almost perfectly balanced game with a thorough set of rules one can rely upon.

Ted Wayz, on 03 June 2017 - 10:11 AM, said:

Oh, I thought you were going to mention the money wasted on the tournament.

Le Sigh.

Really? Money wasted on the tournament? And how much money exactly do you think they've wasted? Coz ya know ... doing nothing and then some more nothing really does require lots of money.

Fkn pathetic.

[Cyborne Elemental]

Hitreg is still garbage, if you want to cry about something, thats where you start.

Game needs a new engine, period.

This ancient mess of Cryengine just can't handle all that MWO is capable of. apparently.

[Weeny Machine]

The Trojan Titan, on 03 June 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

Hitreg is still garbage, if you want to cry about something, thats where you start.

Game needs a new engine, period.

This ancient mess of Cryengine just can't handle all that MWO is capable of. apparently.

Hah! How could we forget that. But most likely we already got used to that crap haha

[Athom83]

Mawai, on 03 June 2017 - 07:24 AM, said:

Sorry to nit pick ... it is "tensile" strength as in the post your were quoting. "Textile" refers to fabric or similar woven materials. Tensile refers to the material characteristics in terms of the amount of stress the material can take before failing.

My autocorrect screwed me there.

Mawai, on 03 June 2017 - 07:24 AM, said:

- fusion reactor explosions ... look cool makes no sense

You'd be correct for a fission reactor. But with a fusion reactor, it honestly depends on how the reactor is hit. The sarna page explains this a bit better. Go to the last two paragraphs of the description; http://www.sarna.net...i/Fusion_Engine Summary; It isn't the reactor that creates the explosion, but the quick intake of air before the superheated plasma is supercooled by the containment walls. Thermal expansion is a *****.

Mawai, on 03 June 2017 - 07:24 AM, said:

- lasers with extremely short effective ranges

This is mostly due to the size and power of the laser requiring it to be focused properly. The standard laser in BT is simply designed to pump out enough light and heat to melt the targeted armor. All other forms of lasers are basically modifications to the application of that.

Mawai, on 03 June 2017 - 07:24 AM, said:

- ballistics and missiles also with extremely short effective ranges in real world terms

This is for a few reasons.
The ballistics range is cut short because they are basically howitzers firing HESH rounds. Battletech "missiles" are actually more like rockets. They had the dozens of km long ranged missiles, but they were far to expensive to maintain a stock of on a galactic scale. Also, they're euiped with basic fused to self destruct when they run out of fuel as hitting something important way off in the distance (like the General's pool) is not such a good thing

Mawai, on 03 June 2017 - 07:24 AM, said:

- the whole idea of walking stompy robots (it is absolutely fun ... but both ground and aerospace vehicles are probably much cheaper to produce and far more effective overall)

A tank is not able to pick things up to use them. A walking robit can. A tank cannot easily traverse obstructed terrain, even when it has equipment to do so. A mech can. A tank, even a massive one, does not have the same psychological impact of a 15m tall walking maching with cannons and missiles and lasers and whatnot bristling about it.

[Dino Might]

Athom83, on 03 June 2017 - 05:06 AM, said:

You would be correct, except for few things;
1) That mainly applies to ground preassure, IE the size of the feet.
1.5) Making the feet larger doesn't make the mech less dense. It just gives it bigger feet.
2) While "as dence" as a smaller object, the larger object already has an increase in size for those joints/actuators/etc.
3) It doesn't take into account support given by mynomer musculature.
4) We don't know the actual "tensile strength" of the various Armors and Materials that compose the structure (Endo-steel, XT, FT 10X, etc).
4.5) Tensile strengths between mechs are somewhat different as they use different materials for structure and armor from mech to mech (except for "endo-steel").

Those points support my point that we can argue physics both ways. You can't argue that this isn't realistic when the actual engineering has so many degrees of freedom as to make any of the arbitrary rules a justifiable possibility. The one major thing we can agree on, however, is that these mechs would weigh far more than 100 tons and not be able to stand on their own. Ceding that, the rest of it can be hand-waved into legitimacy.

Edited by Dino Might, 03 June 2017 - 08:42 PM.

[Dino Might]

PhoenixFire55, on 03 June 2017 - 05:30 AM, said:

Consider a simple model with a cubic "mech". Lets say a 20t mech is a cube with a side L and volume of L³. Given the equal density across tonnage spectra a 100t mech would be a cube with a volume of 5L³. The side of the 100t cube mech would be ~1.7L. Since the force is proportional to mass the ratio of pressure these two mechs would apply is an inverse ratio of ground surface, i.e. L² to 2.9L². Thus if you make a "feet" surface of a 100t mech three times the surface of a 20t mech (which doesn't seem unrealistic at all since linear size would only be ~1.7 times longer) two mechs in question will apply same pressure. Obviously same thing goes for hips and joints and whatnot. Assault mechs already have bigger ankles, knees, hips etc.

That model obviously talks only about mechs in static, dynamic forces and pressures are a way more complicated issue, but since myometers and other BT tech isn't exactly real there is no point in speculating further. Suffice to say, there are no indications in BT "lore" that mechs have different densities, nor is there any real reason for them to as indicated by this simple example.

Agree that your example doesn't provide a reason, and lore doesn't either, but we can imagine situations in which it would be important. Look at the art of many of the mechs - certain joints appear similar in size on various weights of mech, and would be supporting much larger loads than other mechs with the same or similar actuators.

If we want to go all lore on this, go to tabletop construction rules. Actuators have no weight (huh? let's assume some negligible 0.01 tons or somesuch) and each one takes up a single critical slot. So, constant density, and yet, that case is the one that doesn't follow reality. Because an actuator that is moving an AC20 would definitely be different than an actuator moving a small laser. They wouldn't be the same size and density.

So, I think that we can hand-wave as much as needed to justify some of the arbitrary rules, considering how many other blatant physics violations there are in the BT universe.

Edited by Dino Might, 03 June 2017 - 08:43 PM.

[Mystere]

Davegt27, on 01 June 2017 - 11:42 PM, said:

you cant build a great game based on how much one side is crying over the other

its like a dog chasing its tail

But isn't that exactly what PGI has been doing all these years via the repeated balance cycles that already have gone full circles instead of actually adding more meat to this still skeleton of a game that is still nothing more than an arena-based shooter with BattleTech skins?

But, oh, yes, we should just shut up and buy another Mech pack.

Edited by Mystere, 04 June 2017 - 12:09 AM.

[Mawai]

Sjorpha, on 03 June 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

There are no specific rules for scaling in battletech at all, if anything was ever truly "arbitrary" it is the original scaling of BT mechs. You have lights taller than assaults and whatnot, they just decided a height for each mech as they went on with basically no relation between size and tonnage.

So if you're asking for scaling to actually follow the battletech sourcebooks I don't know what to say, but I guarantee you it would seem very weird in a shooter. Note that not even HBS does that for their game, they are also doing a more sensible scaling based on tonnage.

So given that battletechs own scaling is completely unworkable for designing a computer game, especially one where scaling matters for balance, PGI and any other developer are forced to come up with their own system for scaling.

Tabletop is just another game, just like this one it takes place in the Battletech universe. You are conflating one of the games with the IP itself just because it's older.

Demanding that different games based on a given IP has the same rules is a very weird position, then why even make different games? The IP is the lore, rules should just be the best design possible and can be different for each game within the IP.

You are one grumpy ****** though, I suspect I'm too much of a happy camper for us to understand each other. Let's just agree to disagree. Development seems to finally be going in the right direction the way i see it.

Actually, as far as I know HBS is using the 3D models from MWO as the basis for their mechs (they are sharing some resources) ... as a result, the HBS scaling is the same as the MWO one. However, in HBS Battletech, as in Table Top, the scaling is actually irrelevant since the hit and damage allocation are determined by random dice roll ... in the HBS game, scaling is just eye candy.

[Mawai]

Athom83, on 03 June 2017 - 03:47 PM, said:

My autocorrect screwed me there.


You'd be correct for a fission reactor. But with a fusion reactor, it honestly depends on how the reactor is hit. The sarna page explains this a bit better. Go to the last two paragraphs of the description; http://www.sarna.net...i/Fusion_Engine Summary; It isn't the reactor that creates the explosion, but the quick intake of air before the superheated plasma is supercooled by the containment walls. Thermal expansion is a *****.


This is mostly due to the size and power of the laser requiring it to be focused properly. The standard laser in BT is simply designed to pump out enough light and heat to melt the targeted armor. All other forms of lasers are basically modifications to the application of that.


This is for a few reasons.
The ballistics range is cut short because they are basically howitzers firing HESH rounds. Battletech "missiles" are actually more like rockets. They had the dozens of km long ranged missiles, but they were far to expensive to maintain a stock of on a galactic scale. Also, they're euiped with basic fused to self destruct when they run out of fuel as hitting something important way off in the distance (like the General's pool) is not such a good thing


A tank is not able to pick things up to use them. A walking robit can. A tank cannot easily traverse obstructed terrain, even when it has equipment to do so. A mech can. A tank, even a massive one, does not have the same psychological impact of a 15m tall walking maching with cannons and missiles and lasers and whatnot bristling about it.

Unfortunately, most of these are examples where Battletech physics and real physics collide and a good background is needed in order to understand the issues.

1) Take proton-proton or H-H fusion for example.

http://www.fisicanuc...19-856264-0.pdf
page 11 - table of fusion reactions, energy released and cross-sections

p-p fusion has a cross section of 4e-22, releases 1.44MeV/reaction .. 0.27 of which is completely lost to a neutrino, and has D and an electron as reaction products which is problematic in terms of which particle gets most of the reaction energy.

Compare to D-T
D-T has a cross section of 1.2e4, releases 17.59MeV/reaction, has reaction products of He3 and a neutron, the neutron receives 14.1eV of the released energy so a reactor requires a blanket to capture the kinetic energy of the neutron.

The best choices for a science fiction reactor would be either D-He3 or p-Boron ... both release decent amounts of energy, have reasonable cross-sections and all their reaction products are charged particles which makes it feasible to consider MHD methods to extract the power since the charged particle may be constrained by the magnetic fields. However, fast ion and first orbit losses of these charged particles after the fusion reaction occurs is still an issue since the energy of the reaction product will typically be much higher than the plasma and so they will have a much larger gyro radius than plasma particles for a given magnetic field strength.

https://en.wikipedia...rtant_reactions

Most nuclear fusion references don't even mention p-p fusion since the reaction cross sections are so low. Even in the sun "At the temperatures and densities in stellar cores the rates of fusion reactions are notoriously slow." ... though the sun is a high pressure and relatively low temperature environment compared to a terrestrial fusion reactor.

As for "thermal expansion" : http://www.sarna.net...i/Fusion_Engine

"There have been a number of cases of fusion engines being "over revved" and exploding with devastating force, but this is more akin to a boiler explosion than a true nuclear explosion. More often a destroyed engine will be punctured by weapons fire. Because the plasma is held in a vacuum chamber (to isolate the superheated plasma from the cold walls of the reactor; contact with the walls would super-chill the plasma below fusion temperatures), a punctured reactor can suck in air where the air is superheated. Normal thermal expansion of the air causes the air to burst out in a brilliant lightshow often mistaken for a "nuclear explosion". This thermal expansion damages anything within 90 meters of the destroyed 'Mech."

This is more Battletech physics hyperbole. Fusion reactors are extremely hot but operate at a very low density. There are about 2.5e25 particles in one cubic meter of air at standard temperature and pressure. Fusion reactor density is more like 1e20 ... lets say 1e21 for some futuristic reactor.

Fuel ions are hydrogen isotopes while the atmostpheric particles will be mostly nitrogen for an earth type atmosphere.

Lets assume a 10keV core temperature which is about 100,000,000K. If the reactor volume is 10m3 then the total stored energy in plasma particles (excluding the magnetic field which itself represents a fair bit of energy but will more likely dump into the material components ... runaway electrons etc).

1e21 * 10,000 * 1.6 e-19 * 10 = 1.6e7 Joules of energy

https://en.wikipedia...gnitude_(energy)

This about the energy of combustion of 0.5m3 of natural gas or about the energy released by 2kg of TNT or about the kinetic energy of one high velocity armor piercing round. In addition, MOST of the energy will be contained within the reactor chamber being used to heat the walls/armor and other components.

Of course it is all still Battletech physics so this is mostly a moot discussion but the point I am making is that the hand waving justifications in the Battletech technical readout and the Sama webpage really don't make any sense from a physics perspective and some of it was specifically invented AFTER a particular Battletech author decided it would be cool for mechs to explode and the editors didn't know enough to catch the issue.

This doesn't make Battletech any less fun ... but it doesn't make it any more real either

2) One quick comment on lasers.

Lasers could have a fixed focal length that would increase the energy density at the focal point. However, this would then make them much more effective at the focal point than anywhere else ... either closer or farther away (though that depends to some extent on beam dispersion). Changing focal lengths in real time means changing the optics, it also requires focusing materials that can withstand the energy density of the beam at the point where it traverses the optics. However, in this case there is no practical reason that the effective focal distance would be limited to only a few hundred meters.

The other approach is a laser with a fixed cross-section where dispersion is the primary mechanism of beam energy loss. In this case, the range should be far larger than a few hundred meters.

Anyway, the distinct ranges used in Battletech are a game mechanic and not a physics constraint.

3) Ballistic weapons.

Another mostly fruitless discussion. You suggest that Battletech rounds are mostly HESH ... basically a projectile with a plastic explosive shaped charge.

https://en.wikipedia...ive_squash_head

"Since the 1970s, HESH ammunition has increasingly fallen out of favour as armour designs have trended towards layered composites of hard metal and heat-resistant materials. "

Unfortunately, the reasons highlighted in this sentence for the reason why HESH is not used so much any more actually corresponds to a good description of Battletech armor.

The following description is from the Technical Manual but captures some more of the Battletech physics in terms of material properties.

http://haveno.info/B...0TechManual.pdf

"The Layers

Standard BattleMech armor consists of multiple layers.Only two of these layers are armor in the truest sense. The

other two layers play supporting roles. The outer layer of armor is an extremely strong, extremely hard iron alloy...a steel. It is intended to fragment projec-tiles and/or—hey, have you heard anyone use “and/or” aloud before?—to fragment projectiles and/or ablate protectively in the face of energy attacks. The grains of this steel, that is, its crystals, are carefully aligned for maximum strength and radiation-treated to further hardness and strength. Though phenomenally strong and hard, the steel pays for these properties by being quite brittle. In fact, the steel is brittle enough that the second layer of armor that backs the steel is a ceramic, cubic boron nitride. The point of the boron nitride layer is to act as a catcher’s mitt for the fragments and plasma of the steel. Another very strong, very hard material with a brittleness problem, boron nitride is carefully processed to avoid any porosity and incorporates an additional web of artificial diamond fibers to make the ceramic a fine backstop for the steel outer layer."


Basically, the description here implies that Battletech armor is specifically designed to mitigate HESH type explosives.

In additon, I couldn't find data on typical effective ranges for HESH ammunition but anecdotally it appears to be on the order of miles rather than 270m for the AC20.

4) Both LRMs and Streak SRMs are guided missiles so they already have whatever tracking technology is needed. Range is just a function of fuel in the projectile. Fuel is usually cheap. Missiles already are equipped with everything they need for long range use except some extra fuel. Anyway, again no real justification for such limited ranges for missile weapon systems.



The bottom line to all of this is ... it's Battletech physics ... all the hand waving explanations the authors care to come up with won't change the reality which is that the game is science FICTION. Fun fiction, enjoyable fiction, cool fiction ... but fiction none the less ... which doesn't necessarily fit into the physics of our universe. (It may fit into the Battletech universe physics for all we know since it is made up ).

Edited by Mawai, 04 June 2017 - 09:29 AM.