444 réponses à ce sujet

[The Captainator]

Subject9x wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

FS3D wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

rofl you're serious?  You really have a problem with the idea that the reapers could exist as far back as longer than the theoretical existence of our galaxy?  

OH MAN


I dont think I want to even GET YOU STARTED on the problems you must have with PSYCHIC SPACE SHIPS in my mass effect.  :lol:

You're a troll... Nothing more.

I'll say it once only, in as simple a terminology as I can muster so that even you can understand.

The known age of the very universe itself is 13.7 Billion Years Old.

That's all there is to it.

Yes, it's impossible with what we currently know to travel faster than light speed, but ways around it are invented for plot device reasons because otherwise, any story we write is confined to our own planetary system, and that could get boring very quickly.

Yes it's impossible to imagine how Biotic powers could work, but it works because it allows for powers to be granted to species to make combat and story points interesting. Suspension of disbelief is possible because ways can be found to make these ideas work.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYTHING OR ANYONE TO EXIST BEYOND THE AMOUNT OF SPACE-TIME ITSELF. AND NO AMOUNT OF CONVOLUTED SPACE MAGIC WILL CHANGE THIS FACT.

In addition, there is no need for "hundreds of billions of years" when it comes to the Reapers, so why you persist in this infantile troll-like manner in trying to justify your childish fantasy of having the Reapers exist for "hundreds of billions of years" is beyond any sane person on this planet.

Now do you get it? Or is your thinking so muddled that you make a Creationist look like an intelligent person?

Wow you completely missed my point and wrote it off as simple trolling.

the reapers very EXISTENCE flies against the realities of our universe.  so much of the game goes against our understanding of reality.  The idea of the reapers existing any billions of years in the past or just being able to fly from dark space into our galaxy and into another system is completely illogical and requires as much of a suspension of disbelief as biotics or psychic space ships.  Most aliens in the universe are a suspension of disbelief (collectors, vorcha, asari) and could not exist in any real capacity outside of this story.  the length at which reapers have existed in our society is irrelevant to our understanding of the galaxy because of that work of fiction, its a reasonable suspension of disbelief.  100 billion years was an example, not a crutch.  even 3 billion years would produce more potential reaper harvests than we would know what to do with.  that is what my arguement was, not how it reacted to actual scientific knowledge in reality.  thats what was funny, that you took THAT seriously above all things, its ridiculous.  (watch i bet you'll just jump on what i said in this last sentence even though i addressed it in the rest of the paragraph)


And yeah, 1bill being the minimum means at least 20k attempts.  the idea of killing 10,000 reapers is still kind of crazy especially considering even just a thousand reapers could wipe out all life in the galaxy over a few centuries.

But this still doesn't take into account evolution not being able to produce sentient life every 50k years. On an evolutionary and galactic timescale that's just too short of a window. And as far as I know the ME universe primarily adheres to the rules of evolution, fictional alien design notwithstanding. 

The reapers could very easily manipulate any life to evolve the way they want it, like tending a garden.  They leave the relays and the Citadel around to help advance life that makes it to space, so they could surely leave stuff around to get them to space.  It wasn't needed for this cycle since the Protheans did it for the Asari.

I'm more interested in how FS3D adheres so tightly to "known scientific fact".  I'm going out there to say that any age of the universe someone comes up with is pure conjecture.  Trying to understand the universe, from our viewpoint on earth, is like an ant trying to understand the planet he's walking on.  So many "scientific facts" are called theories, why?  Because they know that something else could easily come up to refute it.  Very few things are actually called "laws" in the scientific community.

Hehe, and you can say I'm trolling if you want.  I'd agree with you if your definition of trolling is to provide arguments against your own posts.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Subject9x wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

that would only matter if evolution happened on the same planet.
If the reapers destroy the atmosphere of 14 worlds, thats still not going to have an impact on the rest of the galaxy's burgoning life.  in ten million years those planets that were devastated could have new civilizations developing.  Remember all the stuff javik said about the species of our cycle from his time?  its not really a problem.

timescale in terms of determining reaper numbers, if the protheans couldnt be turned into one and all the races of their time were wiped, how many other times could this happen? Not to mention species being wiped out by non-reaper related extinction events: like asteroids, gamma ray bursts, etc. To assume that sentient life will always spring forth every 50k years is itself quite the assertion, especially in light of how few planet's we've identified that are in the 'goldilocks' zone of their home star. 

Though the idea that the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65million years ago was actually a mass accelerator round sounds awesome anyway

Keep in mind that we are talking about planets we have been able to observe versus the actual size of the galaxy.  trilions of planets could hold the possibility for what the mass effect franchise claims as far as evolution of life is concerned.

[Subject9x]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Subject9x wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

that would only matter if evolution happened on the same planet.
If the reapers destroy the atmosphere of 14 worlds, thats still not going to have an impact on the rest of the galaxy's burgoning life.  in ten million years those planets that were devastated could have new civilizations developing.  Remember all the stuff javik said about the species of our cycle from his time?  its not really a problem.

timescale in terms of determining reaper numbers, if the protheans couldnt be turned into one and all the races of their time were wiped, how many other times could this happen? Not to mention species being wiped out by non-reaper related extinction events: like asteroids, gamma ray bursts, etc. To assume that sentient life will always spring forth every 50k years is itself quite the assertion, especially in light of how few planet's we've identified that are in the 'goldilocks' zone of their home star. 

Though the idea that the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65million years ago was actually a mass accelerator round sounds awesome anyway

Keep in mind that we are talking about planets we have been able to observe versus the actual size of the galaxy.  trilions of planets could hold the possibility for what the mass effect franchise claims as far as evolution of life is concerned.

I guess, for now, I'm tired arguing, agree/disagree  I don't care anymore. I'm just going to write my own ending, flipoff EAware and call it a day, got better games to get into like New Vegas, indie bundle, etc 
Fallout endings may not be 'artistic' but at least they don't make me feel like i got ****ed over.

and EAware can never take ME1 and 2 away from me, as far as I'm concerned ME3 never happened. 

"Too many people try to play it like the Illusive man, hiding bulls*** behind a smile" - Jacob

Modifié par Subject9x, 20 avril 2012 - 06:05 .

[TMA LIVE]

The fact that pieces of the Human Reaper could survive the Collector Base Explosion, and could be used to work something, hit the final nail in the head that Reapers were way too powerful for any fleet we could get to stop.

[Allan Schumacher]

ZtalkerRM wrote...

Well...do you watch Game of Thrones or read the books? Basically no-one in the entire series there has plot armor. It makes for a very interesting read/watch. I know...stuff is coming in the series and people will dislike it because they've gotten used to characters that will get killed off in wimpy (but realistic) ways. It's..fascinating to see a series that despises the use of plot armor like that.

I suspect that, as a Bioware employee, you are familiar with the Star Wars novels who have gone on using an insanely bad plot shield. Luke, Han, Leia basically can't die and all stay young. They're (canonically) in their 60's now and are still doing the same stuff they did in the movies. It's...very bad. Every book ends basically with Luke crashing his fighter, outnumbered 12 to 1 by Sith, or stuff like that. You know he'll pull a Chuck Norris though. It's bad. Very bad.

When you mention it like this, who is it that really has plot armor in ME3 (or even the series), the Reapers or Shepard and his crew?  (And then by extension, the other species).

[NoUserNameHere]

TMA LIVE wrote...

The fact that pieces of the Human Reaper could survive the Collector Base Explosion, and could be used to work something, hit the final nail in the head that Reapers were way too powerful for any fleet we could get to stop.

What? 

It's not like the Human reaper came flying out of the Omega-4 relay hungry for Shepard's blood. It's robot-parts were used to perform robot tasks. It was inoperable. DEAD. Indoctrination is the only weapon it posseses at this point.

Guess what? Those Reaper corpses on Tuchanka and Rannoch can probably do the same thing. There's no denying that we beat them, though.

[The Night Mammoth]

tractrpl wrote...

Asharad Hett wrote...

The only reason we can't win conditionally was because of writing.

Yes, but it wouldn't make sense otherwise. If you write about a force that's been able to totally inihilate at least 2000 other civilizations, what makes you think that ours is special? This is the "humans are at the center of the universe" argument, which is wrong, wrong, wrong. The sun does not revolve around the Earth, and humanity is not "special" in it's ability to destroy the Reapers.

We won this ware because we were very, very lucky. That's it, end of story.

What makes you think this one is special? 

Is that a serious question, or have you not played any of the Mass Effect games yet? Nothing was ever going to be the same as soon as the Prothean Scientists tampered with the Keeper signal. 

[NoUserNameHere]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

ZtalkerRM wrote...

Well...do you watch Game of Thrones or read the books? Basically no-one in the entire series there has plot armor. It makes for a very interesting read/watch. I know...stuff is coming in the series and people will dislike it because they've gotten used to characters that will get killed off in wimpy (but realistic) ways. It's..fascinating to see a series that despises the use of plot armor like that.

I suspect that, as a Bioware employee, you are familiar with the Star Wars novels who have gone on using an insanely bad plot shield. Luke, Han, Leia basically can't die and all stay young. They're (canonically) in their 60's now and are still doing the same stuff they did in the movies. It's...very bad. Every book ends basically with Luke crashing his fighter, outnumbered 12 to 1 by Sith, or stuff like that. You know he'll pull a Chuck Norris though. It's bad. Very bad.

When you mention it like this, who is it that really has plot armor in ME3 (or even the series), the Reapers or Shepard and his crew?  (And then by extension, the other species).

Shepard can die three times, two of which are permanent. Everyone in ME2 can die but Joker. Wrex and one human can die in game one. Anderson eats it (though you can control how gracefully he dies) regardless. Liara is the only returning character who has what could be called plot armor.

Compare to Kai Leng, who is unstoppable (until he's not) or the Reapers -- like Soveriegn, who was retconned into taking on 3 fleets solo because the Reapers are just soooo unstoppable. Hell, 10 dreadnaughts could probably take the Systems alliance alone.

[knightnblu]

When my game tells me that I have an even chance against the Reapers at 50% readiness, then I know that we can win this conventionally.

[A0170]

knightnblu wrote...

When my game tells me that I have an even chance against the Reapers at 50% readiness, then I know that we can win this conventionally.

Thats a bit of a stretch. The war readiness level just measures how ready your forces are to fight the war, not your actual chances of winning it. 

While having your readiness level at a higher level can certainly increase your odds, that doesn't mean 50% readiness=you have an even chance of winning.

Modifié par A0170, 20 avril 2012 - 06:49 .

[Mria]

 idk if some 1 already said that (i wont go 14 pages to check that) but:

the reapers have destroyed countless civilizations and have adapted over the cycles (most likely adding their techonlogy to their own not only their biomass.)

the only reason the galatic forces are able to fight reapers in the amount mentioned in the codex is because of techonology gathered from sovering and most likely the energy the reapers lost to reach the milky way wich proboly weakened their energy cap.

thanxix cannons are only avaible thankfully to the turians that developed the technology after they stolen sovering main gun and even then they had to make it weaker (imo) due to the conventional ships can sustain that much firepower

the barriers that the normandy has doesn't save them from the reapers entirely mainly because the collectors ship dont have the same fire power as a reaper due ( i would say 1/2 of a reaper firepower) even then a reaper dread could easily rip a alliance dread, as seen in the cutscene.

[TMA LIVE]

NoUserNameHere wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

The fact that pieces of the Human Reaper could survive the Collector Base Explosion, and could be used to work something, hit the final nail in the head that Reapers were way too powerful for any fleet we could get to stop.

What? 

It's not like the Human reaper came flying out of the Omega-4 relay hungry for Shepard's blood. It's robot-parts were used to perform robot tasks. It was inoperable. DEAD. Indoctrination is the only weapon it posseses at this point.

Guess what? Those Reaper corpses on Tuchanka and Rannoch can probably do the same thing. There's no denying that we beat them, though.

Those were lesser Reapers meant to fight on the ground. Not Capital Ships. And 3 of them were taken down by shooting weak points not protected by armor or barriers.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 20 avril 2012 - 07:00 .

[A0170]

Mria wrote...

 idk if some 1 already said that (i wont go 14 pages to check that) but:

I don't blame you.

the reapers have destroyed countless civilizations and have adapted over the cycles (most likely adding their techonlogy to their own not only their biomass.)

Agreed.

the only reason the galatic forces are able to fight reapers in the amount mentioned in the codex is because of techonology gathered from sovering and most likely the energy the reapers lost to reach the milky way wich proboly weakened their energy cap.

True about Sovereign, and I may just add that we got lucky with the Prothean scientists on Ilos and their successfully reprogramming the keepers.

thanxix cannons are only avaible thankfully to the turians that developed the technology after they stolen sovering main gun and even then they had to make it weaker (imo) due to the conventional ships can sustain that much firepower

The Alliance has them too, but you're right about the energy issues. After all, they only began implementing this technology in (ME1's ending) 2183 at the soonest. With it now being only three years later in ME3 (2186), I can imagine there's still plenty of kinks to work out. Also, at the end of the day its still reverse engineered Reaper tech, which the Reapers have been using for who knows how many years. While the thanix cannons give us a chance, their weapons are undoubtedly superior. Not to mention their advantages over us in shield and armor technology.

the barriers that the normandy has doesn't save them from the reapers entirely mainly because the collectors ship dont have the same fire power as a reaper due ( i would say 1/2 of a reaper firepower) even then a reaper dread could easily rip a alliance dread, as seen in the cutscene.

Exactly. Even with our Thanix cannons it takes a continual volley from a multitude of ships to take down one Reaper ship. However, one Reaper destroyer, can take down a cruiser in a few shots without much problem. Reaper capitals then would have far more devasting firepower too.

[FS3D]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Wow you completely missed my point and wrote it off as simple trolling.

the reapers very EXISTENCE flies against the realities of our universe.

No sh!t sherlock. I'm aware that the sentient machines are a plot device. But they are much less unacceptable to someone who understands the scientific method and the realities of the universe than having said species exist far beyond the known age pf the universe.

The idea of the reapers existing any billions of years in the past or just being able to fly from dark space into our galaxy and into another system is completely illogical and requires as much of a suspension of disbelief as biotics or psychic space ships.

But the idea of them existing beyond the known age of the universe kills all suspension of disbelief to all but Young Earth Creationists, who believe that the universe is only 6000 years old to begin with (against all the evidence to the contrary).

thats what was funny, that you took THAT seriously above all things, its ridiculous.  (watch i bet you'll just jump on what i said in this last sentence even though i addressed it in the rest of the paragraph)

Now you're being disingenuous AND dishonest. Not that I expected anything else from a troll who uses appeals to ridicule when someone else comes along and objects to suspending disbelief so far as to allow a plot device to exist longer than the universe itself.

And yeah, 1bill being the minimum means at least 20k attempts.  the idea of killing 10,000 reapers is still kind of crazy especially considering even just a thousand reapers could wipe out all life in the galaxy over a few centuries.

I don't have an issue with the idea that the Reapers are a difficult to kill species. That's not my argument. My argument, the one argument I made... The one you chose to ridicule... Was the one about them existing beyond the known age of the universe itself.

Keep up with the ridicule all you want. I'll let other, more intelligent people decide for themselves if I am being reasonable or pedantic.

The Captainator wrote...

I'm more interested in how FS3D adheres so tightly to "known scientific fact".

Because said known scientific fact has been rigorously tested, which is something you clearly don't understand given the following passages...

I'm going out there to say that any age of the universe someone comes up with is pure conjecture.

I would suggest some reading from the Peer Review. WMAP examinations of the cosmic background radiation has given us a very accurate picture of the universe, and we have been able to determine the age of the universe to a degree of accuracy that is very difficult to challenge. If the age of the universe is wrong after all of these experiments, then the Atomic Bomb would no longer be possible, since these observations rely on the same scientific principles.

Trying to understand the universe, from our viewpoint on earth, is like an ant trying to understand the planet he's walking on.

That's an insult to the work that the scientists have done to date. Are you religious? I suspect you are. The next thing you'll be telling me is that Evolution is impossible because it contradicts the 2nd law of Thermodynamics (hint: it does no such thing), or that Evolution is unlikely because where did the Universe come from? (hint: The Big Bang and Evolution are two distinct theories in completely separate fields of science and have absolutely nothing to do with each other).

So many "scientific facts" are called theories, why?  Because they know that something else could easily come up to refute it.  Very few things are actually called "laws" in the scientific community.

And this is where your lack of scientific understanding is revealed for what it is.

Here's a brief education in how science works with respect to terminology such as theories and laws.

A law is a description of an observation. It explains nothing. It merely describes.

For example, the law of gravitation states that mass generates gravity, by using a mathematical equation.

A theory is a framework of facts and laws that explains how these facts and laws come together to describe the phenomenon in detail being studied.

The theory of gravity includes the law of gravitation and describes how gravity works with respect to the various masses and energies in the universe.

tl;dr: The theory of gravity explains how gravity works. The law of gravitation merely describes an aspect of an observation. Theories are much more powerful than laws.

The very last thing in scientific parlance that describes a theory is a guess or conjecture. Please do not make the same mistake in the future.

Hehe, and you can say I'm trolling if you want.  I'd agree with you if your definition of trolling is to provide arguments against your own posts.

Not funny. Get an education, then you can try being funny.

Modifié par FS3D, 20 avril 2012 - 07:26 .

[ArchDuck]

FS3D wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
So many "scientific facts" are called theories, why?  Because they know that something else could easily come up to refute it.  Very few things are actually called "laws" in the scientific community.

And this is where your lack of scientific understanding is revealed for what it is.

Here's a brief education in how science works with respect to terminology such as theories and laws.

A law is a description of an observation. It explains nothing. It merely describes.

For example, the law of gravitation states that mass generates gravity, by using a mathematical equation.

A theory is a framework of facts and laws that explains how these facts and laws come together to describe the phenomenon in detail being studied.

The theory of gravity includes the law of gravitation and describes how gravity works with respect to the various masses and energies in the universe.

tl;dr: The theory of gravity explains how gravity works. The law of gravity merely describes an aspect of an observation. Theories are much more powerful than laws.

The very last thing in scientific parlance that describes a theory is a guess or conjecture. Please do not make the same mistake in the future.

Thank you. That mistake is very annoying and way too common.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 20 avril 2012 - 07:28 .

[The Captainator]

FS3D wrote...

And this is where your lack of scientific understanding is revealed for what it is.

Here's a brief education in how science works with respect to terminology such as theories and laws.

A law is a description of an observation. It explains nothing. It merely describes.

For example, the law of gravitation states that mass generates gravity, by using a mathematical equation.

A theory is a framework of facts and laws that explains how these facts and laws come together to describe the phenomenon in detail being studied.

The theory of gravity includes the law of gravitation and describes how gravity works with respect to the various masses and energies in the universe.

[color=rgb(255, 0, 0)">[i]tl]theory of gravity[/color] explains how gravity works. The law of gravitation merely describes an aspect of an observation. Theories are much more powerful than laws.

The very last thing in scientific parlance that describes a theory is a guess or conjecture. Please do not make the same mistake in the future.

Hehe, and you can say I'm trolling if you want.  I'd agree with you if your definition of trolling is to provide arguments against your own posts.

Not funny. Get an education, then you can try being funny.

Yes, obviously us humans are dominant in our knowledge of the universe.  Only when you realize you know nothing can real learning begin.  Call me religious or not, I'm simply stating that nothing can be claimed as impossible, not until we have 100% pure understanding of how the universe works.  And the age of the universe is not 100%.  Throw in quantum physics and everything we know gets messed up, and all to explain why certain "observations" are happening that they can't otherwise explain.

But you're right, I stopped studying physics back when you were probably still in diapers.

[FS3D]

ArchDuck wrote...

FS3D wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
So many "scientific facts" are called theories, why?  Because they know that something else could easily come up to refute it.  Very few things are actually called "laws" in the scientific community.

And this is where your lack of scientific understanding is revealed for what it is.

Here's a brief education in how science works with respect to terminology such as theories and laws.

A law is a description of an observation. It explains nothing. It merely describes.

For example, the law of gravitation states that mass generates gravity, by using a mathematical equation.

A theory is a framework of facts and laws that explains how these facts and laws come together to describe the phenomenon in detail being studied.

The theory of gravity includes the law of gravitation and describes how gravity works with respect to the various masses and energies in the universe.

tl;dr: The theory of gravity explains how gravity works. The law of gravity merely describes an aspect of an observation. Theories are much more powerful than laws.

The very last thing in scientific parlance that describes a theory is a guess or conjecture. Please do not make the same mistake in the future.

Thank you. That mistake is very annoying and way too common.

It's an all too common mistake, and one that really jangles my nerve worse than a cat screeching in the night.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

FS3D wrote...
No sh!t sherlock. I'm aware that the sentient machines are a plot device. But they are much less unacceptable to someone who understands the scientific method and the realities of the universe than having said species exist far beyond the known age pf the universe.

I'm not trolling, I actually find it kind of crazy that this is something to take issue with, especially because i was using the idea of "hundred billion years" lightly.  It was mostly just baffling that THAT got such a huge reaction.  I am baffled.

FS3D wrote...
But the idea of them existing beyond the known age of the universe kills all suspension of disbelief to all but Young Earth Creationists, who believe that the universe is only 6000 years old to begin with (against all the evidence to the contrary).

(What do creationists have to do with anything?  I dont really have any religion at all...)
It doesnt kill all suspension of disbelief for me because its still a made up story with its own rules and logic.  I'm not really making this arguement but hypothetically lets say the reapers WERE arround for....600,000,000,000 years.  You could just say that earth in mass effect is just that many more years away from the beginning of the universe and susbend your suspension of disbelief that way.

Now psychic blue women and psychic bugs and psychic spaceships....thats something that I cant really rationalize.  

FS3D wrote...
Now you're being disingenuous AND dishonest. Not that I expected anything else from a troll who uses appeals to ridicule when someone else comes along and objects to suspending disbelief so far as to allow a plot device to exist longer than the universe itself.

uses appeals to ridicule?  what?  I dont really understand what you mean here can you clarify?  You're mocking me for putting forth a suspension of disbelief about the existence of the universe within a fictional work?  Are you off your rocker?  I'm not trolling i am actually completely confused by your responses, dude.  Are you high or something?  :|

FS3D wrote...
I don't have an issue with the idea that the Reapers are a difficult to kill species. That's not my argument. My argument, the one argument I made... The one you chose to ridicule... Was the one about them existing beyond the known age of the universe itself.

As I said i wasnt ridiculing the arguement itself, but the reaction, because it was one I was not anticipating on any level...

FS3D wrote...
Keep up with the ridicule all you want. I'll let other, more intelligent people decide for themselves if I am being reasonable or pedantic.

well now you're just being an ****.  :\\

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

FS3D wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

FS3D wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
So many "scientific facts" are called theories, why?  Because they know that something else could easily come up to refute it.  Very few things are actually called "laws" in the scientific community.

And this is where your lack of scientific understanding is revealed for what it is.

Here's a brief education in how science works with respect to terminology such as theories and laws.

A law is a description of an observation. It explains nothing. It merely describes.

For example, the law of gravitation states that mass generates gravity, by using a mathematical equation.

A theory is a framework of facts and laws that explains how these facts and laws come together to describe the phenomenon in detail being studied.

The theory of gravity includes the law of gravitation and describes how gravity works with respect to the various masses and energies in the universe.

tl;dr: The theory of gravity explains how gravity works. The law of gravity merely describes an aspect of an observation. Theories are much more powerful than laws.

The very last thing in scientific parlance that describes a theory is a guess or conjecture. Please do not make the same mistake in the future.

Thank you. That mistake is very annoying and way too common.

It's an all too common mistake, and one that really jangles my nerve worse than a cat screeching in the night.

rofl uh could you fix that quote i didnt say that the other guy did.

[FS3D]

The Captainator wrote...

FS3D wrote...

And this is where your lack of scientific understanding is revealed for what it is.

Here's a brief education in how science works with respect to terminology such as theories and laws.

A law is a description of an observation. It explains nothing. It merely describes.

For example, the law of gravitation states that mass generates gravity, by using a mathematical equation.

A theory is a framework of facts and laws that explains how these facts and laws come together to describe the phenomenon in detail being studied.

The theory of gravity includes the law of gravitation and describes how gravity works with respect to the various masses and energies in the universe.

[color=rgb(255, 0, 0)">[i]tl]theory of gravity[/color] explains how gravity works. The law of gravitation merely describes an aspect of an observation. Theories are much more powerful than laws.

The very last thing in scientific parlance that describes a theory is a guess or conjecture. Please do not make the same mistake in the future.

Hehe, and you can say I'm trolling if you want.  I'd agree with you if your definition of trolling is to provide arguments against your own posts.

Not funny. Get an education, then you can try being funny.

Yes, obviously us humans are dominant in our knowledge of the universe.  Only when you realize you know nothing can real learning begin.

Pseudo-philosophical nonsense. I don't make any claims to knowing everything there is to know in the universe, and would be the first to say that our knowledge is infinitessimal compared to what there is to learn... But your analogy is inappropriate and unacceptable.

Call me religious or not, I'm simply stating that nothing can be claimed as impossible, not until we have 100% pure understanding of how the universe works.

This is wrong, completely and utterly. You don't need to be omnipotent to know that nothing has ever been demonstrated to exist outside of space-time, and hence, nothing can exist before the age of the universe. You dont need to be omnipotent to know that something can be demonstrated to be impossible using logic and the observations that we already know.  You don't need to be omnipotent to know that it is pointless speculating on what we do not know and cannot test, so it is safest to assume it's unlikely until such time as evidence to the contrary is provided.  You don't need to be omnipotent to know that asserting something as possible when it is not even testable is a meaningless and pointless waste of time.

And the age of the universe is not 100%.

No, but it is not 0% either, which is what people like your "good" self imply. We know the age of the universe is approximately 13.75 Billion years old, give or take 110 million years. That's 0.8% margin of error. I'd say 99.2% accuracy is pretty much satisfactory, even if you want to say "We don't know 100% so you could be completely wrong trolololol".

Throw in quantum physics and everything we know gets messed up, and all to explain why certain "observations" are happening that they can't otherwise explain.

And this demonstrates a blatant misunderstanding of Quantum Physics. I suggest you go read an actual Quantum Physics textbook. Quantum Physics does not affect temporal mechanics. It is a physical phenomenon that, while interesting, does not contradict cause and effect within the universe.

You are ascribing abilities to quantum phenomena that have not been demonstrated to exist. Do you watch "What The Bleep?" I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that pile of "documentary" was wonderful and completely valid.

But you're right, I stopped studying physics back when you were probably still in diapers.

And it shows.

[FS3D]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

FS3D wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

FS3D wrote...

Captainator wrote...
So many "scientific facts" are called theories, why?  Because they know that something else could easily come up to refute it.  Very few things are actually called "laws" in the scientific community.

And this is where your lack of scientific understanding is revealed for what it is.

Here's a brief education in how science works with respect to terminology such as theories and laws.

A law is a description of an observation. It explains nothing. It merely describes.

For example, the law of gravitation states that mass generates gravity, by using a mathematical equation.

A theory is a framework of facts and laws that explains how these facts and laws come together to describe the phenomenon in detail being studied.

The theory of gravity includes the law of gravitation and describes how gravity works with respect to the various masses and energies in the universe.

tl;dr: The theory of gravity explains how gravity works. The law of gravity merely describes an aspect of an observation. Theories are much more powerful than laws.

The very last thing in scientific parlance that describes a theory is a guess or conjecture. Please do not make the same mistake in the future.

Thank you. That mistake is very annoying and way too common.

It's an all too common mistake, and one that really jangles my nerve worse than a cat screeching in the night.

rofl uh could you fix that quote i didnt say that the other guy did.

How dishonest. I never attributed this quote to you.

Edit: I scrolled back to take a look to double check, just in case I misquoted. I never attributed this quote to you. Check for yourself.

Modifié par FS3D, 20 avril 2012 - 07:51 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

I was talking to BOTH of you. :-/ as in "its in both your posts fix it please" i dont care who's fault it is it's just not a great thing to see while scrolling through a topic.

[FS3D]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

I was talking to BOTH of you. :-/ as in "its in both your posts fix it please" i dont care who's fault it is it's just not a great thing to see while scrolling through a topic.

You quoted my post. That implies it was addressed to me. I won't apologise for assuming it was me you were addressing when you didn't make it clear you were not.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

it WAS addressed to you. it was also addressed to the other guy as well.

[FS3D]

[quote]Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

[quote]FS3D wrote...
No sh!t sherlock. I'm aware that the sentient machines are a plot device. But they are much less unacceptable to someone who understands the scientific method and the realities of the universe than having said species exist far beyond the known age pf the universe.[/quote]
I'm not trolling, I actually find it kind of crazy that this is something to take issue with, especially because i was using the idea of "hundred billion years" lightly.  It was mostly just baffling that THAT got such a huge reaction.  I am baffled.[/quote]

Your bafflement isn't my concern. I have explained my position, you chose to ridicule it.

[quote][quote]FS3D wrote...
But the idea of them existing beyond the known age of the universe kills all suspension of disbelief to all but Young Earth Creationists, who believe that the universe is only 6000 years old to begin with (against all the evidence to the contrary).[/quote]
(What do creationists have to do with anything?  I dont really have any religion at all...)
It doesnt kill all suspension of disbelief for me because its still a made up story with its own rules and logic.  I'm not really making this arguement but hypothetically lets say the reapers WERE arround for....600,000,000,000 years.  You could just say that earth in mass effect is just that many more years away from the beginning of the universe and susbend your suspension of disbelief that way.[/quote]

No, because this was never implied in the story. If it's not implied in the story, then people are going to go with whatever is closest to it in terms of knowledge... And current knowledge is that the Earth is 13.75 BYA.

[quote]Now psychic blue women and psychic bugs and psychic spaceships....thats something that I cant really rationalize.  [/quote]

Which is probably why they took so much time and effort to explain them within the game itself... And a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is permissible.

[quote][quote]FS3D wrote...
Now you're being disingenuous AND dishonest. Not that I expected anything else from a troll who uses appeals to ridicule when someone else comes along and objects to suspending disbelief so far as to allow a plot device to exist longer than the universe itself.[/quote]
uses appeals to ridicule?  what?  I dont really understand what you mean here can you clarify?[/quote]

Look up the definition of the Appeal to Ridicule in the dictionary. I don't really want to write it out here.

[quote]You're mocking me for putting forth a suspension of disbelief about the existence of the universe within a fictional work?[/quote]

No I'm not. You ned to go back and re-read my posts again. My objection is to your statements about how long the Reapers were around, and I explained why it's impossible even within the game's world itself.

[quote]Are you off your rocker?  I'm not trolling i am actually completely confused by your responses, dude.  Are you high or something?  :|[/quote]

You say you are not trolling yet you ask if I'm high, or off my rocker? That's the very definition of trolling.

And I don't do drugs.

[quote][quote]FS3D wrote...
I don't have an issue with the idea that the Reapers are a difficult to kill species. That's not my argument. My argument, the one argument I made... The one you chose to ridicule... Was the one about them existing beyond the known age of the universe itself.[/quote]
As I said i wasnt ridiculing the arguement itself, but the reaction, because it was one I was not anticipating on any level...[/quote]

I'm not concerned with what you anticipated. I'm not here to pander to your ego or your expectations. If your response to someone objecting to something so ridiculous as to propose the existence of a race beyond the age of the universe itself is to ridicule their critic, then that says more about you than it does about me.

[quote][quote]FS3D wrote...
Keep up with the ridicule all you want. I'll let other, more intelligent people decide for themselves if I am being reasonable or pedantic.[/quote]
well now you're just being an ****.  :


[/quote]

If you say so.