132 réponses à ce sujet

[Arkitekt]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Also, planets turned into one huge city are total bollocks.






www.irregularwebcomic.net/comic.php

www.irregularwebcomic.net/comic.php

This is fine and funny, but it lacks a bit of imagination. We do not know what the future holds in terms of energy production, food production, etc.,etc. I'm sure that if you tried to make predictions of the future in, say, the 1600s to the 2000s, you'd definitely fall incredibly short on many numbers as well, and would probably consider the real numbers we achieved as a ludicrous irrealistic fantasy.

Also, Coruscant is just the rehash of Isaac Asimov's Trenton in the Foundation. Don't know if this was pointed out before, but I must make sure someone does 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arkitekt wrote...

This is fine and funny, but it lacks a bit of imagination. We do not know what the future holds in terms of energy production, food production, etc.,etc.

Keep reading the next cvomics in the link

We know the limits. There are best-possible-theoretical cases. Basic laws of thermodynamics.

I'm sure that if you tried to make predictions of the future in, say, the 1600s to the 2000s, you'd definitely fall incredibly short on many numbers as well, and would probably consider the real numbers we achieved as a ludicrous irrealistic fantasy.

1600s?
You mean before we had proper scientific method and computers?
You do relaise that our predicions become more and more accurate as our science advances?

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 09 février 2012 - 01:16 .

[Poison_Berrie]

Arkitekt wrote...

This is fine and funny, but it lacks a bit of imagination. We do not know what the future holds in terms of energy production, food production, etc.,etc. I'm sure that if you tried to make predictions of the future in, say, the 1600s to the 2000s, you'd definitely fall incredibly short on many numbers as well, and would probably consider the real numbers we achieved as a ludicrous irrealistic fantasy.

The numbers speak for themselves.
You could perhaps live on the planet, if the civilization had all manner of clever and sophisticated technological solutions to your heat, energy and pollution problems. Such a planet would however just not be viable economically.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 09 février 2012 - 01:43 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

This is fine and funny, but it lacks a bit of imagination. We do not know what the future holds in terms of energy production, food production, etc.,etc.

Keep reading the next cvomics in the link

We know the limits. There are best-possible-theoretical cases. Basic laws of thermodynamics.

I'm sure that if you tried to make predictions of the future in, say, the 1600s to the 2000s, you'd definitely fall incredibly short on many numbers as well, and would probably consider the real numbers we achieved as a ludicrous irrealistic fantasy.

1600s?
You mean before we had proper scientific method and computers?
You do relaise that our predicions become more and more accurate as our science advances?

The Age of Descartes, Pascal and Leibniz was the developing of scientific method.
I agree computers do the calculations so easily, but still we can't be sure of Star Wars technologies. The history of Star Wars is more than 50,000 years and there must be many inventions out there.

In Coruscant.. may be recycling of sewers for food(!), garbage plants for energy and sort of unknown cooling system for the devices, factories etc.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...
The Age of Descartes, Pascal and Leibniz was the developing of scientific method.
I agree computers do the calculations so easily, but still we can't be sure of Star Wars technologies. The history of Star Wars is more than 50,000 years and there must be many inventions out there.

In Coruscant.. may be recycling of sewers for food(!), garbage plants for energy and sort of unknown cooling system for the devices, factories etc.

Waht part of "best possible theoreticals" are you missing?

Yes, we can now say with 99,999999% certantythat Xis impossible.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 09 février 2012 - 06:44 .

[Arkitekt]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

This is fine and funny, but it lacks a bit of imagination. We do not know what the future holds in terms of energy production, food production, etc.,etc.

Keep reading the next cvomics in the link

We know the limits. There are best-possible-theoretical cases. Basic laws of thermodynamics.

That's pretty arrogant. I know the argument for a long time ago, but all that people are able to claim is an extrapolation from current realities to these scenarios. The heat argument is the most robust, but even still I do claim that we know next to nothing wrt distant future technological possibilities. There may be very good solutions to all the waste / heat problems that we can't even dream of today.

1600s?
You mean before we had proper scientific method and computers?
You do relaise that our predicions become more and more accurate as our science advances?

You do "relaise" that we are as advanced in regards to the 2400s as the 1600s were to us? And I'm being generous to our generation.

[AlanC9]

Arkitekt wrote...
This is fine and funny, but it lacks a bit of imagination. We do not know what the future holds in terms of energy production, food production, etc.,etc. I'm sure that if you tried to make predictions of the future in, say, the 1600s to the 2000s, you'd definitely fall incredibly short on many numbers as well, and would probably consider the real numbers we achieved as a ludicrous irrealistic fantasy.

So you're saying maybe they do have 80,000 Star Destroyers making deliveries every day?

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 février 2012 - 06:50 .

[Arkitekt]

Fun fact: in the 1900s people claimed that metacities like today's New York would be impossible because the amount of manure from horses would become impossible to manage.

[Arkitekt]

AlanC9 wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...
This is fine and funny, but it lacks a bit of imagination. We do not know what the future holds in terms of energy production, food production, etc.,etc. I'm sure that if you tried to make predictions of the future in, say, the 1600s to the 2000s, you'd definitely fall incredibly short on many numbers as well, and would probably consider the real numbers we achieved as a ludicrous irrealistic fantasy.

So you're saying maybe they do have 80,000 Star Destroyers making deliveries every day?

Of course, that's the ironic upshot .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
That's pretty arrogant. I know the argument for a long time ago, but all that people are able to claim is an extrapolation from current realities to these scenarios. The heat argument is the most robust, but even still I do claim that we know next to nothing wrt distant future technological possibilities. There may be very good solutions to all the waste / heat problems that we can't even dream of today.[/quote]

There's nothing arogant about it. Laws are laws. Proven to work everywhere, 100% correct, no exceptions.

If you're talking about some other, younger areas of physics, I'd agree. There's much we dont' know.

But the basic laws are well know.



[quote]
1600s?
You mean before we had proper scientific method and computers?
You do relaise that our predicions become more and more accurate as our science advances?[/quote]

You do "relaise" that we are as advanced in regards to the 2400s as the 1600s were to us? And I'm being generous to our generation.
[/quote]

You dont' get it obviously.

As time moves forwards our predictions become more and more accurate as our knowledge grows.
Hence, comparing predictions in 1600 and predictions made in 2000 is pointless, given that the accuracyof 2000's predictionsis FAR, FAR greater.


Cities like Corrusant are BS no only becaue of phyisics, but also because of logistics. It just MAKES NO SENSE to build a city like that if you have starships.

[Arkitekt]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...
That's pretty arrogant. I know the argument for a long time ago, but all that people are able to claim is an extrapolation from current realities to these scenarios. The heat argument is the most robust, but even still I do claim that we know next to nothing wrt distant future technological possibilities. There may be very good solutions to all the waste / heat problems that we can't even dream of today.

There's nothing arogant about it. Laws are laws. Proven to work everywhere, 100% correct, no exceptions.

Geeesh, Trashman. Take it easy. No single physics law is like that, but I don't even need them to be rewritten.

However,
there are loopholes everywhere. You'd rightfully guess that a civilization that
has broken down the General Law of Relativity would be able to successfully
manage their trash.

You dont' get it obviously.

As time moves forwards our predictions become more and more accurate as our knowledge grows.
Hence, comparing predictions in 1600 and predictions made in 2000 is pointless, given that the accuracyof 2000's predictionsis FAR, FAR greater.

Ah, the "scientific method". The 2400s will look at it like a father looks at a baby trying to mimic cute sounds. Awww that's so cute!.

Please. You are trapped into some kind of severe chronocentrism.

Cities like Corrusant are BS no only becaue of phyisics, but also because of logistics. It just MAKES NO SENSE to build a city like that if you have starships.

You may have a point somewhere, but you aren't expressing it well. To say that a city planet isn't a good idea coz starships is like saying that megacities today are bad ideas because we have ships, planes and cars.

[Chuvvy]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

If bioware thinks 12 billion is over populated, they can't into statistics, or didn't do research. The US could produce enough food for 12 billion nearly on its own (farmers get paid extra by the government not to grow food), and we could fit 12 billion in and around texas, (assuming we built up, like new york). Overpopulation is overhyped, ironically enough. If you look at UN statistics and take into account agricultural technology growth, we won't be overpopulated for a very long time.

Overpopulation is of course not so much a question of do we have the resources/space, but more of can we/will we distribute those resources and what are the effects of accomadating for the bigger population on the enviroment and society.

The world hunger problem could be fixed easily. If the western world spent as much on charity, as we do on our pets, we'd solve he hunger problem. Inversely, if the leaders of countries with hunger problems spent as much on agricultural  technology as they do on guns and ammo, they'd be able to solve their own problems. It's pretty embarrassing that the only thing ****ing the planet is mismanagement and incompetence.

[Wulfram]

Coruscant is probably going too far, but you can certainly fit 10s of billions on a single planet, no problem. Unless I've messed something up, if the Earth's land area had the population density of the UK, there would be 98 Billion people on the planet.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arkitekt wrote...

Geeesh, Trashman. Take it easy. No single physics law is like that, but I don't even need them to be rewritten.

However,
there are loopholes everywhere.

Yes, there are laws like that - unfortunately for you.
If you think loopholes exist, do point one out. Go ahead. Show me one loophole in the Laws of Thermodynamics. OR matter and energy conservation. Just one. No matter how tiny.

You'd rightfully guess that a civilization that
has broken down the General Law of Relativity would be able to successfully
manage their trash.

Fat chance. We are currently drowning in our own trash and our population isnot evenclose to Corruscant.
Also, this is far more than just trash we're talking about.

Also, planet-sized cities don't break one scientific law. They break a dozen of the most basic ones at once.

You dont' get it obviously.
As time moves forwards our predictions become more and more accurate as our knowledge grows.
Hence, comparing predictions in 1600 and predictions made in 2000 is pointless, given that the accuracyof 2000's predictionsis FAR, FAR greater.

Ah, the "scientific method". The 2400s will look at it like a father looks at a baby trying to mimic cute sounds. Awww that's so cute!.

Please. You are trapped into some kind of severe chronocentrism.

And you fail to see the reality of the world.
It's common sense that with more data your predictions are more accurate, yes? And yet you insist to say otherwise.

You may have a point somewhere, but you aren't expressing it well. To say that a city planet isn't a good idea coz starships is like saying that megacities today are bad ideas because we have ships, planes and cars.

Building a planet-sized city, evne if it was scientificly possibnle, wouldbe a move of moronicproportions. It's quitesimply inefficent. Unnecessary.
Kinda like  building a super-huge tank the size of an aricraft carrier. Looks impressive, but as a war machine a complete faliure that makes no tactical/strategic sense.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 09 février 2012 - 08:31 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Wulfram wrote...

Coruscant is probably going too far, but you can certainly fit 10s of billions on a single planet, no problem. Unless I've messed something up, if the Earth's land area had the population density of the UK, there would be 98 Billion people on the planet.

And all of those 98 billions need water, food, housing and will want all the other nice extras.

That's without counting space and resources needed for plants and animals.

[Wulfram]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And all of those 98 billions need water, food, housing and will want all the other nice extras.

That's without counting space and resources needed for plants and animals.

The UK manages it.  And that's with todays technology.

(Edit: OK, we're not self sufficient in food.  But with a bit of belt tightening, we could be)

Modifié par Wulfram, 09 février 2012 - 08:43 .

[Aimi]

Wulfram wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And all of those 98 billions need water, food, housing and will want all the other nice extras.

That's without counting space and resources needed for plants and animals.

The UK manages it.  And that's with todays technology.

The UK's been importing huge amounts of its food for well over a century.

[Wulfram]

daqs wrote...

The UK's been importing huge amounts of its food for well over a century.

Was editing when you posted, sorry.

The majority of our food is home produced.  We could probably get by nowadays, though it wouldn't be especially comfortable, we'd need to be more efficient and tighten a few belts.

With Mass Effect level technology, I can't see it being anything like a problem.

[Poison_Berrie]

Well you'd need an Utopic world government that makes sure that everybody everywhere gets what they need (food, clothes, housing), area and city planning focused only on efficiency, lot's of vertical farming and artificially grown meat.

[Il Divo]

Arcian wrote...

Are people seriously trying to justify Coruscant?

I mean, seriously? It's the asterisks unholy grail of impossible planets.

I think the real question is if anyone really cares whether Coruscant is scientifically possible. Star Wars doesn't even exist in our timeline the way that ME technology is supposed to. It's enjoyable simply as a fantasy setting.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 février 2012 - 01:27 .

[chengthao]

Slidell505 wrote...

The world hunger problem could be fixed easily. If the western world spent as much on charity, as we do on our pets, we'd solve he hunger problem. Inversely, if the leaders of countries with hunger problems spent as much on agricultural  technology as they do on guns and ammo, they'd be able to solve their own problems. It's pretty embarrassing that the only thing ****ing the planet is mismanagement and incompetence.

actually the best way to solve world hunger isn't charity but destroying the rainforests, the reason America is so successful isn't b/c the ppl are "superior" or that Americans are "smarter", its because we have huge huge amounts of land that we use for agriculture, thus the price of food in America is cheap compared to other nations, we don't have to spend an entire paycheck on food and so we have extra money for "luxuries" like cars and insurance and video games, and that's what drives our economy, if we Americans simply stopped being stupid tree huggers and allowed nations, like Brazil or Loas or Vietnam or any other nation with a rain forest, to destroy their rainforests for farmland, world hunger would be much less of an issue

[Lotion Soronarr]

Il Divo wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Are people seriously trying to justify Coruscant?

I mean, seriously? It's the asterisks unholy grail of impossible planets.

I think the real question is if anyone really cares whether Coruscant is scientifically possible. Star Wars doesn't even exist in our timeline the way that ME technology is supposed to. It's enjoyable simply as a fantasy setting.

I don't recall anyone asking the question if it is "enjoyable" or not.
The question if Corruscant is possible has been raised. So it kinda is the real question.

[Lotion Soronarr]

chengthao wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

The world hunger problem could be fixed easily. If the western world spent as much on charity, as we do on our pets, we'd solve he hunger problem. Inversely, if the leaders of countries with hunger problems spent as much on agricultural  technology as they do on guns and ammo, they'd be able to solve their own problems. It's pretty embarrassing that the only thing ****ing the planet is mismanagement and incompetence.

actually the best way to solve world hunger isn't charity but destroying the rainforests, the reason America is so successful isn't b/c the ppl are "superior" or that Americans are "smarter", its because we have huge huge amounts of land that we use for agriculture, thus the price of food in America is cheap compared to other nations, we don't have to spend an entire paycheck on food and so we have extra money for "luxuries" like cars and insurance and video games, and that's what drives our economy, if we Americans simply stopped being stupid tree huggers and allowed nations, like Brazil or Loas or Vietnam or any other nation with a rain forest, to destroy their rainforests for farmland, world hunger would be much less of an issue

Wut? 

....  



This is either the most epic trolling attempt ever...or you are the most retarded person ever.

Chopping down the entire rain forest is your solution??????

[Bleachrude]

Keep in mind that Star Wars has long been seen as a fantasy setting which just use "science-sounding" names and locations.

Then again, space opera like Wars and ME are intrinsically "unrealistic". On the mohs scale of science fiction hardness, Wars is clearly a 1 (and not even a 1.5). ME itself wavers between a 3 and 4 (depending on game and how tightly you believe gameplay matches lore).

The higher the value, the closer to "real world" aspects the setting clings to.