I liked the elegant dance of the Lacrymaria olor by Mr. Wim van Egmond

Love the love for the machines.. the elegant lines of the planes and awesome animation that gives them weight...

It occurs to me you could probably manage it without too much in the way of Segway-esque magic. Have the outer shell as you'd expect, basically a big hamster ball, then a second ball inside it with all the clever stuff.

For the inside inside have most of the lower half be ballast of some sort - battery packs would be ideal for that - then 8 or so wheels pushing against the outer shell so you can move in a decent number of directions (might have to retract the wheels perpendicular to the direction of movement unless there's a more elegant solution I'm missing).

Then finally for the upper half make a very smooth dome, put a little cart on it whose position you can adjust with a couple of cables, stick a couple of strong magnets on the cart (need a motor on the cart too so you can rotate the head).

This is all based on my years of not having done anything remotely connected to model building!

I'd love to get in on this conversation because this subject really interests me. This video touched on a lot of interesting theories.

@robdot - I don't understand people who think they "know" the answers to the universe. There are unanswered questions in every model. Do you know the answer to what dark matter and energy is? Nobody has yet detected it. Yet, our "universe" is supposedly filled with the stuff.

Let's also define what a universe is. My definition is; it's a place governed by the same set of physical laws.

So we have "our" universe, that we hypothesize about through our observations and measurements. We have theories that say "other" universes exist in some form or another. If their physical laws are different then ours, there would probably be no way to observe them, and therefore no way to prove their existence. Lack of proof is not proof that it doesn't exist.

I could write a book on what i "think" about what our universe is. For simplicity, let me just say that I moved from telecom engineering to software architect. In software, we create programs to run simulations. We create vast game worlds with whatever "physical" attributes we want to program into them. Lets assume we created artificial intelligence. In what context would "it" live? Most everyone assumes it would just be one conscience interacting with us in the form of a robot (Que cheesy Hollywood films).

Let's give it the power of quantum computing. It then decides to understand us (it's creator), it needs to program a simulation that mimics all it knows about our physical world. It wouldn't make one simulation, run it and be done. It would make many simulations, probably simultaneously, tweaking each new one based on the results of the previous ones.

Just imagine where this could lead. This intelligence could figure out how to create a multitude of different, very elegant universes. Its time scale would be different then our time. It's simulation could take seconds on its viewing scale, but appear to be billions of years when observing from within it. We have the power to pause, rewind, replay, tweak our simple creations. Imagine what this super intelligence could do with theirs?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

[Smacks head] Of course! Thanks for the elegant solution. OK, show's over – all fixed now.

You are most likely correct that that is not what most people think, because most people simply don't think.

Wow...so any mystic, people generally regarded as useless for any other profession, should be given more weight than anyone who ever graced a stage, no matter what other credentials they may possess? I don't believe that is what most people think, not even most religious people.

Any functioning eye can see itself if you have a mirror. A sword can cut itself if you melt/bend it. ;-)

It seems that you think god had the option to create a perfect universe, but chose not to. If 'he' is omniscient, he does know how it will turn out. (side note, all BUT ONE of those infinite possibilities would be imperfection, but why would 'he' not choose perfection?)

The elegant function of the universe is no proof or even indication of any intelligence behind it, but is only proof of elegance of the laws of physics/nature. No intelligence or designer required for this elegance, and I think the need to have an anthropomorphized "creator" take credit is just a way to feel that somehow humans (which most would say 'he' created the universe for, and/or are made in 'his' image), and therefore you are, in some way, very like the 'creator' and deserving of misusing the universe in any way you see fit.

Non theists do not get mad at god anymore than you get mad at Santa for not bringing you what you want, or leprechauns for not handing you their gold. We get mad at people acting ridiculously, giving credit to phantoms for explainable events, confusing fact with myth, confusing impressionable undereducated people, wasting valuable time with nonsense and non sequitur (often simply as a method to obstruct change), and standing in the way of progress, both scientific and societal. We don't think god fails our standard (except the standard of reality or the requirement of actual existence), we think the very IDEA of god fails along with every definition or description...every time it's examined honestly....no matter which god you choose to examine.

Take a look in the mirror, shiny.

My position is backed up by mountains (both methaphorically and literally) of evidence. You have nothing. I've looked at the so-called evidence for a young earth or creationism and I dismissed it almost instantly.

It fails almost every conceivable test of reliable evidence almost instantly. I am not obliged to consider nonsense. The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you.

If I tell you the sky is pink and green with a giant picture of Steve Carell on it, I'd want some pretty decent evidence to back that up.

I don't have to "seek out someone who agreed" with me, that is the default position. It is the accepted scientific reality.

Part of the reason, I don't have to continually reassess my acceptance of it is because it makes sense. I don't go around thinking "man, evolution is a cool idea, but I wonder why it doesn't explain X", because it does explain X (where X is any silly creationist nonsense like irreduceable complexity, etc).

So, on one hand we have evolution, which has:
- an elegant, sensible theory
- millions and millions of man hours of study
- ginormous swathes of evidence

and on the other we have creationism, which has:
- some old book said it's true and the same book said the book is true (despite the fact that said book has been wrong time and time again)

Anyway, I'm done here.
Have fun on the wrong side of history; you can take a seat over there beside the flat earthers, the slave-owners and the people that thought non-whites were genetically inferior.

LOL. Not as wide on the approach shot and more protected by trees than the 8th hole (joking).

The more I watch this approach the more insane I think it is.
And I can't see another more elegant way in given his constraints of how fast he has to fly to keep the plane in the air without stalling and how steeply he can descend at any one place.

This guy is brilliantly good. A not-so-clear great contributor to this elegant process is that the Dad is comfortable---and so, his cradling and body language and affect (expressed emotion)---all send the message to his child "this is OK and all will be OK"---no anticipatory fear. Even a sense of fun.

That Doc was well trained.

up until seeing it in action, I thought this was going to be a fail video...
elegant solution, bravo.

No denying it's a damm fine engine of basically equal performance (give or take by year). I just feel that in comparison it's a little more clinical and lacks quite the same character as the Rolls Royce (not that it lacks character!). For me it's not quite as elegant looking either (Let's face it the Daimler is a bit of a black block).

Then again I guess I'm a little biased by nationality (not a fan of nationalism at all but little things like this can still get under ones skin).

I really like this little robot. It's quite elegant in the ways it moves. I hope he mass-produces them for experimenters. I'd like to try my hand at making a bowling-bass firmware.

It looked really elegant. Makes me wish I could bench-press with a weight like this.

Dear boy, you're always missed at functions frequently attended, is this your gift?? How thoughtful and elegant. Put it over there with the others and get yourself a drink why don't you all your friends are here, why so cheerless.....Enjoy yourself!