2463 réponses à ce sujet

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Besides Saphra, going by your logic, size is the most important factor we can talk about here.

YES! YES IT IS! THAT'S THE POINT! THE EARTH IS TOO BIG!

I was never admitting to this.  Stop jumping to conclusions.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

I was never admitting to this.  Stop jumping to conclusions.

Oh, well that's too bad. For a moment I thought we might have had a breakthrough. Seems I overestimated you.

No, you underestimated your ego.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

indeed.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...


No, you underestimated your ego.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would I estimate my own ego at all?

you didn't.  That is clearly why it was underestimated.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra="I'm right therefore;i'm right and until you understand this you will be wrong."

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

It seems you're avoiding the main issue at hand.

You might even say that you're... running away...

I think the issue is you not wanting anything to prove you wrong,so you just say there isn't a single thing that relates to your case and therefore you must be correct.

[Praetor Knight]

Incorrigible, I'd say.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

It seems you're avoiding the main issue at hand.

You might even say that you're... running away...

Uh huh.  Because clearly YOU were the last one to give a rebuttal relating to the topic and it's relevant argument.

So actually, it's your turn. So go ahead, try to convince me again that we can ignore physics, statistics and factual evidence based-practices.

Because basically the only way I will ever submit to the Reapers hinges upon me suspending reality.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

I think the issue is you not wanting anything to prove you wrong,so you just say there isn't a single thing that relates to your case and therefore you must be correct.

I think I made my argument pretty well with the forest fire analogy.

I knew that what Sisterofshane was saying was bunk, being nothing more than overconfidence and assumptions on her part, but I needed a way to illustrate it.

And if my argument was bunk, go back and prove the actual math wrong.  Like I said above, at least my arguments have a basis in reality.

[Medhia Nox]

@Humanoid_Typhoon: It's a form of internet argument - it doesn't work as well in real life.



Sovereign destroys 5 ships - never once opens up on the Turian Fleet - and a large armada of Alliance ships remain to attack a Sovereign that is floundering on its back when an attack from the Normandy - a stealth vessel blows it up.

===

The Reapers are not impossible to destroy by any stretch of the imagination.

Sovereign would not have gotten anywhere near the Citadel had he attacked it alone. The proof of that - is shown to you in that video.

Whatever shields he had... yeah, those are called "Plot Shields".

[breakdown71289]

Saphra, there will be a way to beat the reapers.....we've already got them all on earth. All we need now is for Shepard and co. to find their weakness and launch one final assault to take back the Earth and they're finished.

[Sisterofshane]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Besides Saphra, going by your logic, size is the most important factor we can talk about here.

YES! YES IT IS! THAT'S THE POINT! THE EARTH IS TOO BIG!

What else did you think I was talking about when I said the Earth was too big for you to clean up, when I said you had no sense of scale?

Sisterofshane wrote...

But using the codex knowledge we can see that *GASP*, the Surface Area of Eingana is about One hundred billion km squared LESS then Earth!

What are you talking about? It's almost the same size. Earth is only about a 1,000 km more in radius. That's not much. Eingana is slightly smaller than Earth and Venus (sometimes called sister planets) and larger than Mars.

We are talking about a 500 acre forest fire verses a 450 acre fire.

Again, you know nothing of math.

Radius isn't what is important to this debate, it's surface area.

Surface area is equal to four times pi times the radius squared.

Using this equation, the Surface Area of Eingana is roughly 412,813,149 km squared.
And Earth is roughly 510,926,783 km squared.
Thusly, Earth's surface area is about 100,000,000 (that's one hundred billion for the number illiterate) km squared LARGER than Eingana.

And you can't tell me that my comparisons in scale are irrelevant, and then use an example of a scale about one-hundred times smaller than any example I ever used.  That's hypocritical.

This post, MY post, was the last rebuttal with factual evidence stated within this thread.
If you have nothing else to add other than insults and insinuations as to the nature of my arguments, then I'm going to assume this thread is done.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

(missed this post when the page switched over)

Sisterofshane wrote...

Radius isn't what is important to this debate, it's surface area.

The radius is related to the surface area, a fact which you clearly know.

This is what I'm talking about. The bigger it is the more complex. The battle that will be fought may be significantly larger than the one fought over Eingana. The increased size of the planet you have to clean up will just make clean-up harder. Even if the amount of eezo spilled out was roughly equal to Eingana you'd still have a harder time cleaning it up because it'd be spread around roughly evenly around the larger planet.

The radius is related to the surface area, but a larger radius means an EXPONENTIALLY larger surface area.  Earth would actually LOOK  a lot bigger than Eingana from equidistant points in space.

And it wouldn't make it more difficult to clean up.  If I took a sqaure mile of garbage and spread it over a larger area, it's still the same amount of garbage.  It doesn't necessarily mean that it would be any harder, or take any longer to clean up.

It would also mean that the Eezo would not be as concentrated as on the smaller planet, and therefore it's toxic levels would be less.  This would only give us (presumably) more time in which to mount a clean up, over the same amount of surface as we previously presumed before.

And you still haven't proven to me (or shown any evidence) that Eezo will cover the ENTIRE planet.  If it would take the equivalant of the entire Alliance Navy Fleet to have the same amount of Eezo spread over the same amount of surface as Eingana ( which is smaller than Earth)  Then it would presumably take many many more ships for the EXACT SAME CIRCUMSTANCES regarding the Eezo dump to happen over Earth.  This would mean a MASSIVE final battle of Earth's fleet's against the Reapers.

So unless you can prove to me that this is EXACTLY how the battle for our Planet will go down, there is no reason for me  to believe that it's more than a possibility that we will toxify our planet.  And if it is no more than a possibility in an INFINITE number of possibilities, then I will take my chance fighting the Reapers.

[SandTrout]

In this case, size only matters relative to the available labor pool, which is multiplied by available tools (technology).

At the end of ME3, we are going to have a vast labor pool of refugees that we can theoretically train in order to help with the reconstruction and cleanup, probably in the realm of hundreds of millions of people, considering the size of the Reaper invasion and likely destruction of industrial infrastructure, as well as the drop in demand for luxury items in favor of necessities.

Going by Sis's calculations of surface area b/c I'm too lasy to run the numbers myself, and assuming 100% of that surface area is contaminated, that's ~500 million square km of cleanup, with the majority being seaborne. if these 100 million people, just to provide a baseline number, are capable of cleaning up 1 square km per year per person, that would require ~ 5 years for cleanup. Granted, we don't know how much actual manpower is required to clean a square km of eezo contamination in year, but we are likely looking at an available labor force larger than 100 million, as well as the existing military establishment of the Alliance of ~ 300 million.

So, lets say that it takes an average of 5 man-years per square km of land that needs to be decontaminated. I consider this to be feasible b/c 100% cleanup is not necessary, we just need to reduce contamination to levels that the eco-system can handle on its own. Even with just the baseline 100 million workers, cleanup is in the realm of 25 years, with 20 million square km of landmass decontaminated each year.

Considering that large portions of the landmass, and areas like the ice-caps are less than desirable/productive, we can easily prioritize certain areas such as the American mid-west and indo-china's agricultural regions over Antarctica, the Sahara desert, the Himalaya and Rocky mountain ranges, Siberia.

Within the space of a decade, major population centers could be cleaned up adequately. These are reasonable time-frames in order to maintain the habitability of Earth.

All we need is the workforce and equipment, and size become simply a relative issue.

[SJK93]

I'll ask a second time. Saphra, do you really think that all of ME3's endings will result in the Reapers' victory? Seriously?

[Oranet]

I'm not worried. Sorban, his little Volus friend and the cheating Solarian gambler will get together and come up with a virus to put the reapers to sleep!! Then while they're out, we take the programs from each Reaper and place them on Pluto for safe, albeit cold, storage. Thus avoiding the eezo contamination as well as allowing millions of fighter drive cores to be built. Or, a lot of human biotics. Either way, we win!

Nice story, by the way. Thanks.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

And teh FishScout has appeared.


*Slow clap* alright /thread