Aesieru wrote...
RayDX wrote...
Aesieru wrote...
RayDX wrote...
Ryuuken117 wrote...
Mass Effect fields because space magic because physics and gays in space.
End of line.
This.
Not prepared to back up your argument of somantics?
I see.
Bro, it's semantics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
Typo, Somantics is yoga.
Anyway...
---
If you come in and say "HAH, you're wrong, because...", but don't actually put anything to explain the situation in the first place, then you're basically just trolling because you're not conducive or contributing.
You're correct that energy as it's used in sci-fi isn't really energy, but, since every Sci-Fi calls it energy, we're going to go with that for sake of convenience. And there ARE different impacts for energy, especially in regards to the science fiction and science established for this series.
Ok you need to seriously take a look at what you are doing here. The ideas you are presenting here all have gaping holes in them.
1. You say that the asteriod only had the necessary Kinetic force to destroy the relay because of the energy imparted to it by that very relay as it tried to hyper-accelerate it. This has several flaws. First, the physical principal by which this would be possible (force=mass*acceleration) requires that the object is actually accelerating. However, in the video clip we are given, the asteriod is very clearly not accelerating. Secondly, even assuming that it was, then you need to use the whole of the lore the game presents to us. The only reason that the relays allow for such fast travel speeds is because they create a mass free corridor between relays. If the asteriod was close enough to be accelerated by the relay's energies, then it is also close enough to be within this mass free corridor. That means it would have NO MASS. Looks back at that equation then we can see that you could give it infinite acceleration and it would still have no force to impact with.
You also say that the asteriod was too much for the relay to handle. Well first off we have no evidence for this, and actually the game presents evidence to the contrary. In ME 1 we see entire fleets of ships simultaneously use the relays. Their combined mass would be greater than that asteroid. In physics, it takes the same amount of work energy to move five one pound rocks as it does to move one five pound rock to that theory is also blantly wrong.
2. So the relay survives a super nova because of molecular shielding. Ok, this was cleary you pulling something out of your ass here because there is no evidence for this in the games. Moreover, what the hell is molecular shielding supposed to be? If you want to use physics to explain what happened then you have to continue to use it in all your explanations. All atomic particles are subject to the same physical and chemical laws. Those relays are not made of adamantium or mithril here. They are made of a known element that is subject to the same rules as all other known elements. Moreover, a supernova actually releases a astronomical level of kinetic
energy, enough to push all that plasma, which are particles with mass,
outwards to do the level of destruction that it does. This entire point undermines everything you are trying to say because it is a blantant attempt to make up evidence to support your point.
3. The relays in ME 3 would have the same amount of enery as the one destroyed in ME 2. To say that they only blow up in a big way when they are working is asinine. Hey here is another law of physics you should know: CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. Energy is nether created or destroyed, only transfered. This means that even assuming that your horrible explanation is correct in Arrival, that relay had to have that much energy inside it to begin with. This means ALL relays have that much energy. We can then deduce that ALL relays would have to release that much energy unpon their destruction. The idea of controled demolition being smaller violated this principal. In a controled explosion; the same amount of energy is release as in an uncontroled one. The only difference is that you can change the direction that the energy is released.
Now we could try and say that the giant energy beam is them bleeding off energy before destruction, but even that idea holds alot of flaws. First, the destruction of the relay at one end would cause the corridor between the relays to fail so the energy would be reduced to traveling at light speed so the ending with the Normandy being caught in the beam would make no sense. Second, the primary relays are only two way connections. This means that you couldn't have the chain reaction seen in the game because the energy would hit the sister relay from it's original and have no where to go to.
4. I don't have a problem with people using the lore and physics to try and support an argument. In fact, that is the way I would prefer to see it. What I do have a problem with is when people try to subvert the lore and even the principals of physics itself to justify their own ideas; especially when those ideas are actually counter to the evidence they are using. If you want to try and use these principals to justify a certain viewpoint on what happens when the writers don't bother to do it themselves, I highly suggest you bother to actually know how they work first.
k thx bai
Retour en haut
